I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).
ID Author(s) AI Title
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8349j twg 1.0 Temporary CFJ Setup
8350j Alexis 2.0 Apologies Don't Interfere
8351* Jason 3.0 Double proposal application fix
8352e G. 2.0 zombie auction fix 1.1
8353* Murphy 3.0 All that glisters
8354* Alexis, [1] 3.0 Statutory Instrumentation
8355* Alexis, Murphy 3.0 Temporary Suspension of Rules
8356l Aris 2.0 Less Democracy Means More Fun
The proposal pool is currently empty.
[1] Murphy, Aris, Gaelan
Legend: <ID>* : Democratic proposal.
<ID># : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber.
<ID>e : Economy ministry proposal.
<ID>f : Efficiency ministry proposal.
<ID>j : Justice ministry proposal.
<ID>l : Legislation ministry proposal.
<ID>p : Participation ministry proposal.
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8349
Title: Temporary CFJ Setup
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: twg
Co-authors:
Enact a new Rule of Power 1.0 entitled "Temporary CFJ Setup" with the
following text:
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, twg CANNOT publish a Notice
of Honour.
twg CAN, by announcement, cause this Rule to repeal itself.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8350
Title: Apologies Don't Interfere
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Alexis
Co-authors:
Amend rule 2555 by replacing "who has not expunged any blots in the
current Agoran week" with "who has not, by this mechanism, expunged
any blots in the current Agoran week".
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8351
Title: Double proposal application fix
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2034 by replacing the text "such a proposal existed, was
adopted, and took effect." with the text "such a proposal existed, was
adopted, and, if it had not previously taken effect, took effect.".
[Intended to make the consequences of Assessorial mishaps significantly
easier to deal with - this will insure that a proposal does not take
effect twice if an assessment is posted twice (the first time because it
succeeded platonically, the second time because of self-ratification).]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8352
Title: zombie auction fix 1.1
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions) by replacing:
For the purpose of such a auction, to transfer a zombie to a player
is to set that zombie's master switch to that player.
with:
For the purpose of such a auction, to transfer a zombie to a player
is to set that zombie's master switch to that player, and Agora CAN
perform such transfers of the appropriate lots to auction winners.
and by inserting a line break immediately before the resulting text so
that it is a new paragraph.
Amend Rule 2551 (Auction End) by deleting "at will".
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8353
Title: All that glisters
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Murphy
Co-authors:
Enact a new Rule of Power 1.0 entitled "Temporary CFJ Setup" with the
following text:
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, twg CANNOT publish a Notice
of Honour.
twg CAN, by announcement, cause this Rule to repeal itself.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8354
Title: Statutory Instrumentation
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Alexis
Co-authors: Murphy, Aris, Gaelan
=Administrative Law Reform. I. Statutory Instrumentation.=
[This first proposal is a reform to the core rules defining what rules
are, with an aim to better supporting subordinate legal documents. The
intent is to enact very little change to the game as it is actually
played, and to operate mostly in the realm of supporting definitions.]
If this proposal has had any provision vetoed, then the entire
proposal has no effect. If this proposal has already taken effect,
then it has no effect.
In this proposal, "I->S" is to amend a rule within the scope specified
by replacing each instance of "an instrument" with "a statute", and
each other instance of "instrument" with "statute". This is not a
case-sensitive match, however, if the word "instrument" being replaced has a
leading capital, then so does the replacement word "statute".
Enact a new power-3.9 rule entitled "Statutory Instrumentation
Simultaneity", reading:
{{
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the proposal which enacted this
rule CAN effect multiple rule changes, which it could otherwise effect
individually, simultaneously. When it
attempts to do so, if any single rule change it attempts is
INEFFECTIVE, then so is the entire attempt.
If the proposal which enacted this rule effects a change to the
definition of a rule then, except for rules which are simultaneously
and explicitly enacted or repealed with that change, as appropriate,
the rules after that change are exactly the entities that were rules
beforehand. This is a definition of the interpretation of the
amendment to the rules and not, in and of itself, a rule change.
}}
[This proposes to make multiple interlocking amendments to critical
rules defining rules and the interactions between themselves. This
mitigates a real risk that, during a series of sequential changes, the
rules would be in a nonsensical or otherwise broken state. I
considered trying to put in a special clause preserving the effect of
the current rules on rule changes for the duration of the proposal,
but that wouldn't preclude the possibility of some other aspect of the
game, such as asset holdings, doing something weird in the in-between
state. And only a
persistent rule could elegantly paper over that small weird gap in
time. I think simultaneity is the better choice.]
Set the power of all non-rule entities, other than this proposal, to
0. [This is an important safety as the change to the definition of a
rule would potentially cause old non-rule instruments to become rules.
Best not to consider that.]
Apply the following rule changes simultaneously:
{{
Amend Rule 1688 (Power) by replacing "An Instrument is an entity with
positive Power." with "A statute is a document with positive Power."
Apply I->S throughout the remainder of the rule.
Amend rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "set or
modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power
greater than its own." with "set or modify any other substantive
aspect of an instrument with power greater than its own except as
otherwise provided in this rule.", applying I->S throughout the rest
of the rule, and appending a new paragraph reading "An ephemeral
instrument is bound by prohibitions and limitations specified in rules
of lower power, unless it explicitly overrides those prohibition(s) as
provided for in other rules."
[I don't want to consider what it would mean if PCM prevents rules
from interfering with higher-powered proposal. Let's pretend this is
just clarifying something super obvious to everyone.]
Apply I->S throughout Rule 105 (Rule Changes).
Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Instruments" reading:
{
An instrument is a type of document, either ephemeral or enduring,
that is defined as such by a body of law. An instrument's text, where
otherwise permitted, can be amended from time to time.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an instrument other than a
statute CANNOT become binding on a person without eir willful consent,
however, consent can be given by implication. In particular,
consenting to be bound to an instrument can imply consent to be bound
by amendments to it and consent to be bound by other instruments.
}
Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Bodies of Law" reading:
{
A body of law is a collection of related instruments and bodies of law
whose effects are collective and possibly interdependent, and which is
defined as such by a body of law. The statutes of Agora form a body of
law with unlimited scope. All other bodies of law are defined by a
different body of law, in such a way as to be able to trace their
origins back to the statutes of Agora. Two or more bodies of law may
jointly define another body of law, but only each of them clearly
expresses the intent to participate in a joint definition with each of
the others. Otherwise, the definitions are separate, distinct, and
unrelated.
A body of law is governed by all bodies of law which, directly or
indirectly, participate in its definition, as well as any body of law
specified as governing it by any of its governing law. A body of law
is subordinate to the law that governs it, other than itself, and a
body of law is
superior to the law that it governs, other than itself. For greater
certainty, rules to
the contrary notwithstanding, the statutes of Agora govern all law and
are governed by no law except themselves, and no body of law can be
both subordinate to and superior to another.
With respect to interactions between separate bodies of law, a body of
law is generally to be interpreted as acting harmoniously as a single
whole. The precedence between, and organization of, instruments in a
body of law are internal matters to that body of law and generally do
not affect the effect of other bodies of law, except to the extent
that they affect the body's operation as a whole.
The definition of a body of law includes the definition if its scope,
being the areas of the game that it governs. By definition, the scope
of a body of law is no greater than the union of the scopes of the
bodies of law that define it, nor does it include anything which would
bring it into direct conflict with superior law. To the extent that a
body of law's scope is not explicitly defined by superior law, it is
as broad as possible while excluding any effect on any substantive
aspect of any body of law, besides itself, that it does not govern.
Every instrument is a direct member of exactly one body of law; if not
specified in its definition, it is a body of law in itself. A given
fixation of text may, however, be the text of multiple instruments,
each in different bodies of law. The scope of an instrument is the
scope of the body of law it forms a part of. To the extent that the
provisions of an instrument are outside its scope, they are void and
without effect.
}
[This is the core of the reform: a base framework for multiple
separate, scoped bodies of law. Rather than an explicit discussion of
precedence between laws, a framework of scoping is used. This proposal
does not define anything outside of rules and enacted proposals as
being instruments and thus part of this framework, in order to allow
gradual work on areas of the ruleset such as regulations and
contracts.
The reason for "bodies of law" as separate from "instruments" is that
frequently, bodies of law express themselves collectively. The rules
of Agora, for instance, can only be properly interpreted as a whole.
Definitions of entities are often spread out, sometimes to the point
where it's nearly impossible to pinpoint a single instrument as the
source. Bodies of law capture this concept. They also allow more
flexibility to be introduced in proposals to come, such as making
clear that a body of law can modify definitions in superior law
without a conflict. We can also make rules such as Rule 2125 more
natural using this technology, see below.
More importantly, it allows us to create contracts and similar
documents that impose obligations and have other legal effect, but
without that possibly "creeping" upwards and affecting things outside
their scope. Contracts, for instance, can be safely defined without
fear that they could be used to override lower-powered rules.
Bodies of law can be nested. This is to allow for, say, the Rules and
Regulations to collectively act as a single body of law, but the Rules
to act as a body of law within it. In the future this could be the
basis for something like Falsifian's modules. I would rather get the
mechanism solid and well-tested before touching precedence between
rules, however.
Governance of bodies of law cannot, however, be circular, because
while some bodies of law like the rules are self-governing, other
circularity could cause more significant problems by causing a law to
be subordinate/superior to itself, and I want to avoid thinking about
that.
I've worked hard to prevent any sort of bootstrapping scam by which a
body of law could be brought into existence out of nowhere or
otherwise come to govern a superior body without its permission.
Please examine closely to see if I succeeded!]
Amend Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions) to read:
{
An action is regulated by a body of law if (1) its performance is
limited, allowed, enabled, or permitted by that body of law; (2) that
body of law describes the circumstances under which it would succeed
or fail; or (3) it would, as part of its effect, modify information
for which some person bound by that body of law is required, by that
body of law, to be a recordkeepor.
If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that doing so
is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action from being
performed except as described within it, including by limiting the
methods to perform that action to those specified within it. A body of
law does not proscribed any action which it does not regulate.
}
[I'm sad about losing the SHALL NOT there. Violating that would surely
have been one of the great Agoran crimes, along with failing to
carefully consider the consequences of not reading the ruleset during
RtRW.]
Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Effects of Instruments" reading:
{
An instrument's effect is defined by its text, as amended from time to
time in accordance with the law governing its operation. A
"substantive" aspect of an instrument is any aspect that affects the
instrument's operation. If an instrument's text contains clearly
marked comments then, they have no effect on its interpretation or
operation except as that instrument itself specifies, although they
remain part of its text. For the purposes of rules concerning the
methods by which actions are performed, an instrument taking effect is
such a method.
An enduring instrument is one that it is always taking effect, to the
extent it is permitted to so by the Rules and any other applicable
instruments. An enduring instrument is always speaking; uses of the
present tense in an enduring instrument are interpreted contextually
according to the applicable rules of interpretation.
An ephemeral instrument is one that takes effect only briefly, to
effect a number of changes on the game. When it takes effect, the
changes specified in its text are applied, provided that the
instrument is not prohibited from doing so. Unless otherwise specified
by the instrument or by its governing law, the provisions of an
instrument are applied sequentially and independently, in the sense
that the success or failure of each provision does not depend directly
on the success or failure of any other provision.
An ephemeral instrument has no ongoing effect, except to the extent
that the changes it makes have ongoing consequences. It cannot, except
by way of an enduring instrument, extend or delay its own effect. An
ephemeral instrument CAN, where explicitly permitted to do so by the
law governing it, override the effect of an enduring instrument within
its scope by modifying, suppressing, or postponing it. Such an
override is INEFFECTIVE unless the nature and scope of the override
are clearly specified either in the governing law or, where so
authorized by the governing law, in the instrument itself.
An instrument or body of law is not, except where it specifies
otherwise, bound by or restricted in any way by any subordinate law
and implicitly overrides and takes precedence over all provisions,
including outright prohibitions or definitions, of all subordinate
law.
}
[This consolidates the existing rules about proposals and rules into
one place, since they will need to be reused for other instruments. It
also provides explicit override language, mainly intended to ensure
that proposals can have free reign over gamestate modification, though
that's a separate proposal. Law is not bound by any other law so as to
make clear that proposals cannot be restricted by a contract, say.]
Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attribute of Rules) to by replacing the
first two paragraphs with the following:
{
A rule is an enduring statute. Every rule has a power between 0.1 and
4.0, inclusive. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, it is
IMPOSSIBLE to enact a rule with power outside this range, or to change
the power of an existing rule to a nonzero value outside this range.
The set of all currently-existing rules is called the ruleset.
}
Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) to read as follows:
{
When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if the
outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, its
power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, it takes
effect as an ephemeral instrument, and then its power is set to 0.
This rule defers to rules that would prevent a proposal from taking
effect.
}
[While this proposal does not immediately define any non-rule,
non-proposal entities as instruments, the intent is that the creation
of subordinate instruments comes implicitly. Thus, for instance, a
contract can define a "sub-contract" within the scope of its own
effect, and this would be recognized within law, once contracts are
defined as instruments. Proposals ignore all subordinate law except as
specified otherwise; this is a safety provision.
Note that the deference provision is equivalent to the existing
provision about preventing proposals from taking effect being secured,
because deference does not override power as a determiner of
precedence. So it will defer to any rule of power 3 or greater but
take precedence over any lesser-powered rule.]
}}
Repeal the rule "Statutory Instrumentation Simultaneity" enacted
earlier in this proposal.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8355
Title: Temporary Suspension of Rules
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Alexis
Co-authors: Murphy
=Administrative Law Reform. II. Temporary Suspension of Rules=
If no proposal entitled "Statutory Instrumentation" has taken effect
in the previous month, this proposal has no effect. If this proposal
has already taken effect, it has no effect.
Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by appending a new paragraph
reading "A proposal CAN override the effect of any rule which it
is capable of amending by specifying that it does so."
[This is a small side proposal to allow proposals to temporarily
override rules without having to do so by the enactment and subsequent
repeal of a helper rule. It must be explicit.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8356
Title: Less Democracy Means More Fun
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2606, "Proposal Classes", by changing the text
"When a proposal with an adoption index greater than 2.0 is created,
its class becomes democratic."
to read
"When a proposal with an adoption index greater than or equal to
3.0 is created, its class becomes democratic."
[Note that proposals can still be turned democratic with 2 Agoran Consent.
However, this reserves democratic status for proposals changing core
rules or of great public concern.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
