DIS: Re: BUS: Sure, it looks important, but it doesn't actually /do/ anything
On 01/27/2013 06:48 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I become active.
> I submit a proposal, "cleanup", AI 3:
> {{{
> Repeal rule 754.
> }}}
> I become inactive.
>
> First off, I promise in the ordinary-language sense that I don't
> currently have a scam in mind involving this; I haven't tried to think
> of one, and I think it might be unlikely that one exists. This is not to
> say I won't scam this proposal if I think of a scam in the meantime.
>
> scshunt and I were discussing the possibility of cleaning up the
> ruleset, and I think this might be a good place to start. I believe that
> rule 2140 is already sufficient to prevent lower-power rules overriding
> higher-power rules by redefining terms in them. Apart from that, I don't
> think that rule 754 has any huge effect on the game; it's just an entire
> screenful of rule that's listing a bunch of stuff that should be common
> sense, and which would be decided the same way even without the rule's
> existence.
>
> So in other words, we have a large, imposing and scary rule with no
> effect on the gamestate. So why not just get rid of it?
>
Doesn't R754 get cited in judgements all the time?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: IADoP Election
Sorry, right when I took the office I got hit with a huge wave, and I have been unable to go through the entire backlog. If anybody wants to take over IADoP, I'd be more than happy to forfeit it. Otherwise, I'll try to get a report out soon. On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2013-01-20 at 17:42 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: > > > I initiate an election to decide the holder of the IADoP office. I > nominate > > > myself for that election. I intend, through deputisation, to initiate > an > > > Agoran Decision to decide the new IADoP officeholder. > > > > I assume IADoP. I initiate an Agoran decision to decide the holder of > > the IADoP office. I announce that I am the only valid option, thus > > installing myself as IADoP and ending the election. The office is now > > Postulated. > > You're late on this report. (Slightly.) Normally I wouldn't care so > much, but I'm in need of an IADoP report and there hasn't been one since > September. > > I considered criminal proceedings, but am hoping a friendly reminder > will work better. > > -- > ais523 > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Actually, looks like time to start playing again
Gratuitous: By itself, "I cause X to send a message with the same text as Y" may be reasonable shorthand, but isn't there some precedent that we should take the global view and consider the shorthand unreasonable because it is being used to effectively send an infinitely long message?
DIS: Re: BUS: Sure, it looks important, but it doesn't actually /do/ anything
I think I agree that rule 754 is useless, except that I think this part of it is very significant: "A difference between two nonempty spans of whitespace is inconsequential in all forms of communication for all purposes." Maybe we should amend it to say just that. —Machiavelli
DIS: Re: BUS: Actually, looks like time to start playing again
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > I become active. > > [The rest of this message is an attempt to scam a loophole in the > recently passed proposal 7324. Also it calls an election, which is > something that probably needed to happen anyway, but also seems like the > least damaging way to escalate the scam into something that affects the > rest of the game, = is valid for a paradox.] Ooh, nice go, but I think that my previous argument re: limiting default state still holds. -scshunt
