On 3/17/24 20:19, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> On Mar 16, 2024, at 5:38 PM, nix via agora-business
>> <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>> I assign CFJ 4056 to Gaelan.
> Some preliminary thoughts; arguments on any of these points (or any points I
> missed) are welcome.
>
> The argument for TRUE is, broadly, that message 327 created a power-4.9 rule
> (“SILENCE”) which makes public messages “NULL AND VOID”; this would likely
> make
> it impossible to take any actions.
>
> For this to have worked, the following things must be true:
> - The creation of SILENCE worked.
> - Snail’s dictatorship rule “Public Speaking” existed.
> - Proposal 22n’t was adopted. (message 223; appears undisputed)
> - Snail’s dictatorship rule “Public Speaking” had at least power 3.
> - Proposal 23n’t was adopted. (messages 324)
> - The proposal was correctly distributed, despite “23n’t” allegedly not
> being
> a valid ID number (see messages 312, 315, 361)
> - Janet had at least 9 blots.
> - Janet was granted 100 blots for a crime of HIGH TREASON. (message
> 285)
> - Janet was guilty of HIGH TREASON.
> - E objected to an intent tabled by snail. (messages 275 and 276)
> - At least one rule "Oh how the” was created via snail’s
> dictatorship.
> (message 256)
> - Snail’s dictatorship worked. (See points above)
> - “I investigate so-and-so and grant them x blots” is a valid
> synonym
> for “I investigate so-and-so, specifying x as the number of
> blots”.
> - Investigating an infraction does not require any specification of
> when the infraction occurred.
> - Kate’s festivity scam didn’t work.
> - Creating a power-4.9 rule works, despite Rule 2141’s statement that “Every
> current rule has power between 0.1 and 4.0 inclusive.” (I see no attempt
> to amend this.)
> - Rule 105’s four-day requirement did not apply.
> - Proposal 23n’t, which removed this provision, was adopted. (see above)
> - Rule 1698’s ossification protections did not apply.
> - Snail repealed rule 1698 by prognostication. (message 325)
> - Snail’s dictatorship worked and had at least power 3. (see above)
> - Rule 105’s four-day requirement did not apply. (see above)
> - With SILENCE in effect, Agoran’t was indeed ossified.
> - Saying public messages "are NULL AND VOID, and have no effect on the game”
> has the intended effect.
> - There is no way to change the rules (or pass proposals) without sending
> public messages.
>
> Proposals 24n’t and 1001 would have done the same thing as 23n’t; proposals
> 25n’t and 1000 would have set Public Speaking to P2. But I see no attempt to
> resolve any of these.
>
> Gaelan
>
Ooh another issue:
Rule 1030:
> No change to the ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
> directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of determining
> precedence.
Message 326:
>
> Enact a new Rule with title "Oh Shoot", Power 5, and the following text:
> {
> This Rule takes precedence over all other rules, and everything else.
> This rule CANNOT be changed in any way.
> }
>
> Enact a new Rule with title "Only Up From Here", Power 5, and the
> following text:
> {
> This Rule takes precedence over all other rules except the Rule "Oh
> Shoot". Rules CANNOT be repealed, destroyed, or otherwise removed from
> the ruleset.
> }
Both of these rules purport to take precedence over Rule 1030. Rule 1030
thus potentially blocks this change.
Also note that proposal 23n't purported to set the Rule with the title
"Public Speaking" to 3 so Rule 1030 takes precedence over it (message
324). Since that Rule was never given an ID number, Rule 1030 takes
precedence over that Rule because it was enacted earlier. Additionally,
that Rule contains the phrasing (message 223):
> When a speech takes effect, the speech applies the changes
> that it specifies in its text, except as prohibited by other
> rules.
Rule 1030 may be such a "prohibition" for this reason.
This isn't an issue for "SILENCE", but it is an issue for the other
possible ossifications.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
