Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 23:56 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote: It's worth noting that the current wording was specifically written to avoid the issue of Rule 106 accidentally authorizing the proposal to perform higher-power changes. It wasn't accidental at all. Rule 106 used to authorize proposals to do anything, and I made it that way quite deliberately. (Unfortunately, I had to own up before I could actually use it in a scam, because it became relevant in a CFJ; it was then changed to the current wording in order to try to fix the problem.) What I'd assume should allow the proposals to make the changes in question is its positive Power, which should generally be enough to do anything unsecured. (This is in a the rules should be changed to say this sense, not a the rules do say this sense.) -- ais523
DIS: test
this am a test
Re: DIS: test
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 10:52 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote: this am a test I object. -- ais523
Re: DIS: test
I support. On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:57 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 10:52 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote: this am a test I object. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
omd wrote: On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:    Where permitted    by other rules, a proposal that takes effect generally can, as    part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies. This is a no-op (except possibly in the case of a power conflict), because it only copies existing authorization-- which only makes sense in R105 because that rule provides the only mechanism by which rule changes can happen. Remove the where permitted bit and it works, scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization, in particular that it takes effect / it applies those changes doesn't count as authorization. I don't strongly agree, but the proto ought to eliminate the question (or at least reduce it to the issue of the rules bootstrapping their own authority, which ultimately depends on metagame agreement that we don't care if e.g. the constitution of Nukehavistan claims retroactive precedence over the rules). but I think it's unnecessarily specific-- how about this, in R1688? A rule that defines certain actions as part of an instrument's effect also allows those actions to take place, except when explicitly prohibited by rules of equal or greater power. Make it equal or greater power than the instrument and I think it would work.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
Sent from my iPhone On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not permitted by other rules. Actually, let's just leave the rules alone. On further thought, the permission required to perform regulated actions is no greater than to change the rules, so either all proposals have been ineffective since who knows when because somehow a rule can purport to cause something to happen without authorizing it, or the rules are fine as they are. (Considering the number of separate ways the New Pedanticism has found the rules to have been broken for years, I don't know why we don't declare this nomic dead and move to B, whose ruleset has at least historically supported massive gamestate recalculation.)
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
omd wrote: On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not permitted by other rules. Permission can be implicit, in the sense of not prohibited; R101(i) explicitly mentions implicit permission, and a couple other rules say explicitly permitted or specifically permitted. Actually, let's just leave the rules alone. On further thought, the permission required to perform regulated actions is no greater than to change the rules, so either all proposals have been ineffective since who knows when because somehow a rule can purport to cause something to happen without authorizing it, or the rules are fine as they are. Rule 105 explicitly states that instruments taking effect can generally make rule changes. Rule 106 is less explicit. (Considering the number of separate ways the New Pedanticism has found the rules to have been broken for years, I don't know why we don't declare this nomic dead and move to B, whose ruleset has at least historically supported massive gamestate recalculation.) Because we don't believe them.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not permitted by other rules. Permission can be implicit, in the sense of not prohibited; R101(i) explicitly mentions implicit permission, and a couple other rules say explicitly permitted or specifically permitted. R2125 uses the phrase as allowed by the rules. Where permitted by other rules might be slightly different when multiple rules are in conflict (not sure), but I doubt it differs in the level of required explicitness. So any permission that satisfies your antecedent already satisfies R2125.
