Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:57 PM omd wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb > wrote: > > In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write > > up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a > > bunch of copies, and then start handing them out to everyone I know. > > That seems like it would fulfill a natural language meaning of > > "distributing a proposal". > > Indeed, this wording refers to, but is not itself meant to codify, the > presumption that when the rules say something like "distribute a > proposal", they are creating a term of art rather than adopting a > natural language definition. > I think you’re making it worse rather than better. I’d drop the “with no inherent meaning” bit; a judge could easily interpret it to forbid "distribute" being a term of art, since distributing something has meaning. Also, the bit in Mother May I should still go in the regulated actions rule. Let's keep all the regulated action stuff in one place. I really like the current phrasing; it's extremely elegant (honestly, more so than the one here), and no one has pointed out a breakage in it. It's the "A regulated action CAN only be performed as described by the rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action." part. -Aris
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Well, one of the many such precedents stretching back forever. On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 4:00 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 22:57 -0700, omd wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb > wrote: > > > In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write > > > up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a > > > bunch of copies, and then start handing them out to everyone I know. > > > That seems like it would fulfill a natural language meaning of > > > "distributing a proposal". > > > > Indeed, this wording refers to, but is not itself meant to codify, the > > presumption that when the rules say something like "distribute a > > proposal", they are creating a term of art rather than adopting a > > natural language definition. > > CFJ 3719 seems like relevant precedent. > > -- > ais523 > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 22:57 -0700, omd wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write > > up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a > > bunch of copies, and then start handing them out to everyone I know. > > That seems like it would fulfill a natural language meaning of > > "distributing a proposal". > > Indeed, this wording refers to, but is not itself meant to codify, the > presumption that when the rules say something like "distribute a > proposal", they are creating a term of art rather than adopting a > natural language definition. CFJ 3719 seems like relevant precedent. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write > up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a > bunch of copies, and then start handing them out to everyone I know. > That seems like it would fulfill a natural language meaning of > "distributing a proposal". Indeed, this wording refers to, but is not itself meant to codify, the presumption that when the rules say something like "distribute a proposal", they are creating a term of art rather than adopting a natural language definition.
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
In my view, "inherent meaning" is a bit vague. I certainly could write
up a document that suggests a change to the laws of my country, print a
bunch of copies, and then start handing them out to everyone I know.
That seems like it would fulfill a natural language meaning of
"distributing a proposal".
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 1:50 AM, omd wrote:
Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An action is regulated if it:
(a) consists of altering Rules-defined state (e.g. the act of
flipping a Citizenship switch), or
(b) is a Rules-defined term of art with no inherent meaning
(e.g. the act of "distributing" a proposal).
Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
the following:
For regulated actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends on
the mechanism(s) the rules define for performing the action. If
no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
perform the action.
[[[
More explicit than my last proposal; still a (slight) net decrease in
word count. I like this version.
The new definition does not explicitly address 'actions' that consist
only *in part* of altering Rules-defined state, e.g. "wearing a hat
and flipping a Citizenship switch". I think not addressing them is
actually correct. "Putting on a hat and then flipping a Citizenship
switch" has a ground-truth definition, which inherently determines
whether and when it possible to take that action: namely, it's defined
as {putting on a hat (which itself has a ground-truth definition)} and
then {flipping a Citizenship switch (which is defined in the Rules)}.
The Rules should not, and perhaps cannot, define it as something other
than the combination of those two things. Instead, they just
indirectly determine the possibility of the whole by defining the
possibility of the part.
]]]
DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An action is regulated if it:
(a) consists of altering Rules-defined state (e.g. the act of
flipping a Citizenship switch), or
(b) is a Rules-defined term of art with no inherent meaning
(e.g. the act of "distributing" a proposal).
Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
the following:
For regulated actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends on
the mechanism(s) the rules define for performing the action. If
no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
perform the action.
[[[
More explicit than my last proposal; still a (slight) net decrease in
word count. I like this version.
The new definition does not explicitly address 'actions' that consist
only *in part* of altering Rules-defined state, e.g. "wearing a hat
and flipping a Citizenship switch". I think not addressing them is
actually correct. "Putting on a hat and then flipping a Citizenship
switch" has a ground-truth definition, which inherently determines
whether and when it possible to take that action: namely, it's defined
as {putting on a hat (which itself has a ground-truth definition)} and
then {flipping a Citizenship switch (which is defined in the Rules)}.
The Rules should not, and perhaps cannot, define it as something other
than the combination of those two things. Instead, they just
indirectly determine the possibility of the whole by defining the
possibility of the part.
]]]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform
I think it's okay, given that that clause has an explicit "To the extent specified by the Rules". Jason Cobb On 6/22/19 1:00 AM, omd wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote: Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in other binding entities. To the extent specified by the Rules, contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions that meet these criteria are regulated by the contract. Any actions that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by the contract. I put that "Any actions that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by the contract." there to explicitly invoke the override clause in the new Rule 2125. By the definition of "regulated", a contract could still forbid/require/etc. actions that it defines, even if it CANNOT define those actions. This clause prevents that. Oh, I see. I missed that "other actions" does not include "actions that are defined in other binding entities". This still seems a little questionable, since "define or regulate" makes it sound like contracts can regulate actions which they don't define (and which are also not defined in other binding entities). At least, I don't think there's any scenario where it would make sense for a contract to do that.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > >> Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in > >> other binding entities. To the extent specified by the Rules, > >> contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions that > >> meet these criteria are regulated by the contract. Any actions > >> that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by the contract. > I put that "Any actions that do not meet these criteria are not > regulated by the contract." there to explicitly invoke the override > clause in the new Rule 2125. By the definition of "regulated", a > contract could still forbid/require/etc. actions that it defines, even > if it CANNOT define those actions. This clause prevents that. Oh, I see. I missed that "other actions" does not include "actions that are defined in other binding entities". This still seems a little questionable, since "define or regulate" makes it sound like contracts can regulate actions which they don't define (and which are also not defined in other binding entities). At least, I don't think there's any scenario where it would make sense for a contract to do that.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation
But messes are more fun...
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:55 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Done right, it might remove net text. Things that are obvious and
> known by all should not be codified; the record will show you that
> this is no so such thing. Implicit doctrines create messes. They have
> their place, but they should be codified and made binding law.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:45 PM Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > I would oppose this because of my usual opposition to rules that state
> > things that are obvious and known by all, the fact that I am Oath-bound
> to
> > vote AGAINST proposals that add net text, and the fact that rules are not
> > fun and implied doctrines are very fun.
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:33 PM Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, after hearing your logic, I think agree with your general ideas
> > > here, but I'd really like #1 and #2 to be explicitly specified
> > > somewhere. It would give us something to direct new players to, and
> > > something to cite in CFJs when the principle comes up. Would you be
> > > opposed to such an explicit provision?
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:20 PM omd wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)
> > > >
> > > > Repeal Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions").
> > > >
> > > > Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
> > > >
> > > > 5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are
> successful.
> > > >
> > > > the following:
> > > >
> > > > For game-defined actions, the meaning of an "attempt"
> depends
> > > > on the mechanism the rules define for performing the action.
> > > > If no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
> > > > perform the action.
> > > >
> > > > [[[
> > > > Rule 2125 is in an uncomfortable middle ground where it's too
> > > > simplistic to achieve what it wants to achieve, yet explicit enough
> to
> > > > break things. Potentially lots of things.
> > > >
> > > > Jason Cobb has a proto that tries to make it more explicit, but I
> > > > don't think it does enough to address the deficiencies of the rule –
> > > > such as ambiguity about what it means to "limit", as well as (as far
> > > > as I can tell) the question e emself just raised in a different
> > > > thread, about whether the definition of an "action" includes who is
> > > > performing it or its parameters. (I think it does not, but if we're
> > > > going to flesh out the language, that's the kind of thing that should
> > > > be made explicit.)
> > > >
> > > > I don't want to stomp on eir parade, but personally I'd rather take a
> > > > much different approach. I think we could avoid the difficulty of
> > > > defining a regulated action by splitting the "CAN only be performed"
> > > > clause into two simpler precepts:
> > > >
> > > > 1. The gamestate can only be changed as explicitly specified.
> > > >
> > > > 2. A game-defined action can only be performed as explicitly
> specified.
> > > >
> > > > #1 implies that any action which inherently involves changing the
> > > > gamestate as part of its definition – like, "the action of making omd
> > > > a player" – can only be performed as specified.
> > > >
> > > > #2 deals with actions like "distributing a proposal" where gamestate
> > > > changes are only a *result* of performing the action. IMO, what most
> > > > distinguishes these actions is not the fact that the Rules allow or
> > > > disallow them, per se, but the fact that they have no inherent
> > > > definition: that they're just Rules-defined platonic "thingies". To
> > > > make this clause fully explicit, it could be expanded in two ways: it
> > > > could use a more expansive definition of "game-defined action", along
> > > > the lines of what I just wrote, and it could clarify that there's a
> > > > presumption in favor of interpreting the rules as defining new
> actions
> > > > rather than referring to existing ones, even when they use
> > > > ordinary-language terminology ("distribute").
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, the presumption in favor of 'Rules-defined
> platonic
> > > > thingy' doesn't just apply to actions but also to things, like coins
> > > > or proposals. We don't have any rule making it explicit in the
> latter
> > > > case, which suggests that we don't need one for the former either.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, I think #1 and #2 can both be left entirely implicit...
> which
> > > > is why this proposal doesn't introduce any language to replace the
> > > > "CAN only be performed" clause but just repeals it. :)
> > > >
> > > > The "methods explicitly specified" clause is different. It can't be
> > > > left implicit – it's contrary to precedent established before the
> > > > clause was enacted. And that precedent makes sense: if a rule
> > > > explicitly says that something CAN be done (but doesn't say how), who
> > > > are we to decide, without any
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:44 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined > > action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e. > > which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the > > rules. I admit this could be made more explicit. > > Without defining "game-defined", arguably contracts are part of the > game, and contracts can define actions, and thus actions defined by > contracts are "game-defined". Good point. The spirit of the clause is fine to apply to contracts, but there would be a problem if you treat "game-defined" as broader than what "the rules define" (from later in the sentence). This could be avoided by switching "game-defined" to "rules-defined".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation
Done right, it might remove net text. Things that are obvious and
known by all should not be codified; the record will show you that
this is no so such thing. Implicit doctrines create messes. They have
their place, but they should be codified and made binding law.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:45 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> I would oppose this because of my usual opposition to rules that state
> things that are obvious and known by all, the fact that I am Oath-bound to
> vote AGAINST proposals that add net text, and the fact that rules are not
> fun and implied doctrines are very fun.
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:33 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay, after hearing your logic, I think agree with your general ideas
> > here, but I'd really like #1 and #2 to be explicitly specified
> > somewhere. It would give us something to direct new players to, and
> > something to cite in CFJs when the principle comes up. Would you be
> > opposed to such an explicit provision?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:20 PM omd wrote:
> > >
> > > Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)
> > >
> > > Repeal Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions").
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
> > >
> > > 5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
> > >
> > > the following:
> > >
> > > For game-defined actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends
> > > on the mechanism the rules define for performing the action.
> > > If no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
> > > perform the action.
> > >
> > > [[[
> > > Rule 2125 is in an uncomfortable middle ground where it's too
> > > simplistic to achieve what it wants to achieve, yet explicit enough to
> > > break things. Potentially lots of things.
> > >
> > > Jason Cobb has a proto that tries to make it more explicit, but I
> > > don't think it does enough to address the deficiencies of the rule –
> > > such as ambiguity about what it means to "limit", as well as (as far
> > > as I can tell) the question e emself just raised in a different
> > > thread, about whether the definition of an "action" includes who is
> > > performing it or its parameters. (I think it does not, but if we're
> > > going to flesh out the language, that's the kind of thing that should
> > > be made explicit.)
> > >
> > > I don't want to stomp on eir parade, but personally I'd rather take a
> > > much different approach. I think we could avoid the difficulty of
> > > defining a regulated action by splitting the "CAN only be performed"
> > > clause into two simpler precepts:
> > >
> > > 1. The gamestate can only be changed as explicitly specified.
> > >
> > > 2. A game-defined action can only be performed as explicitly specified.
> > >
> > > #1 implies that any action which inherently involves changing the
> > > gamestate as part of its definition – like, "the action of making omd
> > > a player" – can only be performed as specified.
> > >
> > > #2 deals with actions like "distributing a proposal" where gamestate
> > > changes are only a *result* of performing the action. IMO, what most
> > > distinguishes these actions is not the fact that the Rules allow or
> > > disallow them, per se, but the fact that they have no inherent
> > > definition: that they're just Rules-defined platonic "thingies". To
> > > make this clause fully explicit, it could be expanded in two ways: it
> > > could use a more expansive definition of "game-defined action", along
> > > the lines of what I just wrote, and it could clarify that there's a
> > > presumption in favor of interpreting the rules as defining new actions
> > > rather than referring to existing ones, even when they use
> > > ordinary-language terminology ("distribute").
> > >
> > > On the other hand, the presumption in favor of 'Rules-defined platonic
> > > thingy' doesn't just apply to actions but also to things, like coins
> > > or proposals. We don't have any rule making it explicit in the latter
> > > case, which suggests that we don't need one for the former either.
> > >
> > > In fact, I think #1 and #2 can both be left entirely implicit... which
> > > is why this proposal doesn't introduce any language to replace the
> > > "CAN only be performed" clause but just repeals it. :)
> > >
> > > The "methods explicitly specified" clause is different. It can't be
> > > left implicit – it's contrary to precedent established before the
> > > clause was enacted. And that precedent makes sense: if a rule
> > > explicitly says that something CAN be done (but doesn't say how), who
> > > are we to decide, without any rule to the contrary, that it CANNOT?
> > >
> > > Hence the new language added to "Mother, May I?". The idea is that by
> > > saying "it is not possible to attempt to perform the action", it can
> > > still be (vacuously) true that all attempts succeed. That way there's
> > > no need to override the rule that says the acti
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform
Thanks! Responses inline. Jason Cobb On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Cobb wrote: Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs. This seems like it could allow contracts to create ambiguous game states through unreasonably complex conditionals or repetition... though that possibility may already exist. This should probably be fixed with extricability in general, rather than just only applying to contracts. Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in other binding entities. To the extent specified by the Rules, contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions that meet these criteria are regulated by the contract. Any actions that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by the contract. The last sentence seems to do nothing, since "these criteria" include "regulat[ing] other actions" "to the extent specified by the Rules", but it's true in general that you can only regulate things to the extent specified by the Rules. I put the "to the extent specified by the Rules" clause there primarily to allow the final section of the proposal to allow contracts to let its parties do things listed there. I put that "Any actions that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by the contract." there to explicitly invoke the override clause in the new Rule 2125. By the definition of "regulated", a contract could still forbid/require/etc. actions that it defines, even if it CANNOT define those actions. This clause prevents that. A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except that the performance of them must include at least one announcement: "at least one announcement" seems overly broad – e.g. "X CAN act on behalf of Y to deregister by announcing that e likes cupcakes." That's probably valid, although it's at least better than allowing it to be performed secretly. I will withdraw and submit a v1.1 to fix this. An action is regulated by a binding entity if: (1) the entity directly and explicitly defines, limits, allows, enables, permits, forbids, or requires its performance; (2) the entity describes the circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which the entity requires some player to be a "recordkeepor"; or (4) the Rules state that the action is regulated by the entity. There are actions which are forbidden but not meant to be regulated, e.g. making a public statement that is a lie (which, given the definitions in R478, refers to the real-world action of sending an email). If in the previous wording "limit" is interpreted to include "SHALL NOT", then this is a bug in both versions. I can't think of a clear way to fix this other than trying to find all such places in the Rules, which doesn't sound fun. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a binding entity CAN only require or forbid an action that it does not define; it CANNOT modify anything else about the action in any way. This arguably conflicts with the "CAN only be performed" clause below, in which case the latter would take precedence by R2240. Correct, the latter clause should say "An action that is *defined* by a binding entity..." Will fix in v1.1. The set of actions that are regulated by an entity is the entity's set of regulated actions. An action that is regulated by a binding entity CAN only be performed as described by the entity, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the entity for performing the given action. The entity SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe actions that are not regulated by it. The SHALL-NOT-interpret clause really needs to go away; I'm pretty sure it was only added by mistake (i.e. it wasn't intended to use the definition implied by the capitalization). It makes no sense to attach criminal penalties to interpretations at all, let alone without saying those interpretations are wrong. Unfortunately there's no standardised wording for stating that interpretations are valid or invalid. Perhaps "Interpretations that result in the entity proscribing actions that are not regulated by it are invalid"?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:26 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. In particular, > the new version of the rules leaves it unclear whether it's possible to > attempt to do something that's not defined by the rules but which would > change the gamestate. There should likely at least be a reference to > recordkeepor information. For the record, my intent is: If that something is a preexisting action that the Rules say has the *result* of changing the gamestate, like sending an email (in some circumstances), then the circumstances under which it can be attempted or performed are not within the Rules' scope to define. If that something literally *consists of* changing the gamestate, like "making omd a player", then... well, I guess I *want* that to count as a game-defined action, since I definitely want the "meaning of attempt" clause to apply to it. But on reflection, there's a fair argument that it does not.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation
I would oppose this because of my usual opposition to rules that state
things that are obvious and known by all, the fact that I am Oath-bound to
vote AGAINST proposals that add net text, and the fact that rules are not
fun and implied doctrines are very fun.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:33 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, after hearing your logic, I think agree with your general ideas
> here, but I'd really like #1 and #2 to be explicitly specified
> somewhere. It would give us something to direct new players to, and
> something to cite in CFJs when the principle comes up. Would you be
> opposed to such an explicit provision?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:20 PM omd wrote:
> >
> > Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)
> >
> > Repeal Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions").
> >
> > Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
> >
> > 5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
> >
> > the following:
> >
> > For game-defined actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends
> > on the mechanism the rules define for performing the action.
> > If no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
> > perform the action.
> >
> > [[[
> > Rule 2125 is in an uncomfortable middle ground where it's too
> > simplistic to achieve what it wants to achieve, yet explicit enough to
> > break things. Potentially lots of things.
> >
> > Jason Cobb has a proto that tries to make it more explicit, but I
> > don't think it does enough to address the deficiencies of the rule –
> > such as ambiguity about what it means to "limit", as well as (as far
> > as I can tell) the question e emself just raised in a different
> > thread, about whether the definition of an "action" includes who is
> > performing it or its parameters. (I think it does not, but if we're
> > going to flesh out the language, that's the kind of thing that should
> > be made explicit.)
> >
> > I don't want to stomp on eir parade, but personally I'd rather take a
> > much different approach. I think we could avoid the difficulty of
> > defining a regulated action by splitting the "CAN only be performed"
> > clause into two simpler precepts:
> >
> > 1. The gamestate can only be changed as explicitly specified.
> >
> > 2. A game-defined action can only be performed as explicitly specified.
> >
> > #1 implies that any action which inherently involves changing the
> > gamestate as part of its definition – like, "the action of making omd
> > a player" – can only be performed as specified.
> >
> > #2 deals with actions like "distributing a proposal" where gamestate
> > changes are only a *result* of performing the action. IMO, what most
> > distinguishes these actions is not the fact that the Rules allow or
> > disallow them, per se, but the fact that they have no inherent
> > definition: that they're just Rules-defined platonic "thingies". To
> > make this clause fully explicit, it could be expanded in two ways: it
> > could use a more expansive definition of "game-defined action", along
> > the lines of what I just wrote, and it could clarify that there's a
> > presumption in favor of interpreting the rules as defining new actions
> > rather than referring to existing ones, even when they use
> > ordinary-language terminology ("distribute").
> >
> > On the other hand, the presumption in favor of 'Rules-defined platonic
> > thingy' doesn't just apply to actions but also to things, like coins
> > or proposals. We don't have any rule making it explicit in the latter
> > case, which suggests that we don't need one for the former either.
> >
> > In fact, I think #1 and #2 can both be left entirely implicit... which
> > is why this proposal doesn't introduce any language to replace the
> > "CAN only be performed" clause but just repeals it. :)
> >
> > The "methods explicitly specified" clause is different. It can't be
> > left implicit – it's contrary to precedent established before the
> > clause was enacted. And that precedent makes sense: if a rule
> > explicitly says that something CAN be done (but doesn't say how), who
> > are we to decide, without any rule to the contrary, that it CANNOT?
> >
> > Hence the new language added to "Mother, May I?". The idea is that by
> > saying "it is not possible to attempt to perform the action", it can
> > still be (vacuously) true that all attempts succeed. That way there's
> > no need to override the rule that says the action CAN be performed.
> > ]]]
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation
I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e. which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the rules. I admit this could be made more explicit. Without defining "game-defined", arguably contracts are part of the game, and contracts can define actions, and thus actions defined by contracts are "game-defined". Jason Cobb On 6/22/19 12:43 AM, omd wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Jason Cobb wrote: This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of some binding entity." That obviously doesn't help in this proposal. I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e. which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the rules. I admit this could be made more explicit. On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Aris Merchant wrote: Okay, after hearing your logic, I think agree with your general ideas here, but I'd really like #1 and #2 to be explicitly specified somewhere. It would give us something to direct new players to, and something to cite in CFJs when the principle comes up. Would you be opposed to such an explicit provision? Hmm... you do have a point.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. > It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just > incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is > game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of some binding > entity." That obviously doesn't help in this proposal. I wasn't intending to refer to that definition. By "game-defined action" I simply mean an action which is defined by the game, i.e. which exists as a platonic entity because of a definition found in the rules. I admit this could be made more explicit. On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > Okay, after hearing your logic, I think agree with your general ideas > here, but I'd really like #1 and #2 to be explicitly specified > somewhere. It would give us something to direct new players to, and > something to cite in CFJs when the principle comes up. Would you be > opposed to such an explicit provision? Hmm... you do have a point.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be > sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include > conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs. This seems like it could allow contracts to create ambiguous game states through unreasonably complex conditionals or repetition... though that possibility may already exist. > Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in > other binding entities. To the extent specified by the Rules, > contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions that > meet these criteria are regulated by the contract. Any actions > that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by the contract. The last sentence seems to do nothing, since "these criteria" include "regulat[ing] other actions" "to the extent specified by the Rules", but it's true in general that you can only regulate things to the extent specified by the Rules. > A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except > that the performance of them must include at least one announcement: "at least one announcement" seems overly broad – e.g. "X CAN act on behalf of Y to deregister by announcing that e likes cupcakes." > An action is regulated by a binding entity if: (1) the entity > directly and explicitly defines, limits, allows, enables, permits, > forbids, or requires its performance; (2) the entity describes the > circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) > the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for > which the entity requires some player to be a "recordkeepor"; or (4) > the Rules state that the action is regulated by the entity. There are actions which are forbidden but not meant to be regulated, e.g. making a public statement that is a lie (which, given the definitions in R478, refers to the real-world action of sending an email). > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a binding entity CAN only > require or forbid an action that it does not define; it CANNOT > modify anything else about the action in any way. This arguably conflicts with the "CAN only be performed" clause below, in which case the latter would take precedence by R2240. > The set of actions that are regulated by an entity is the entity's > set of regulated actions. > > An action that is regulated by a binding entity CAN only be > performed as described by the entity, and only using the methods > explicitly specified in the entity for performing the given action. > The entity SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe actions that > are not regulated by it. The SHALL-NOT-interpret clause really needs to go away; I'm pretty sure it was only added by mistake (i.e. it wasn't intended to use the definition implied by the capitalization). It makes no sense to attach criminal penalties to interpretations at all, let alone without saying those interpretations are wrong.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation
Okay, after hearing your logic, I think agree with your general ideas
here, but I'd really like #1 and #2 to be explicitly specified
somewhere. It would give us something to direct new players to, and
something to cite in CFJs when the principle comes up. Would you be
opposed to such an explicit provision?
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:20 PM omd wrote:
>
> Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)
>
> Repeal Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions").
>
> Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
>
> 5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
>
> the following:
>
> For game-defined actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends
> on the mechanism the rules define for performing the action.
> If no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
> perform the action.
>
> [[[
> Rule 2125 is in an uncomfortable middle ground where it's too
> simplistic to achieve what it wants to achieve, yet explicit enough to
> break things. Potentially lots of things.
>
> Jason Cobb has a proto that tries to make it more explicit, but I
> don't think it does enough to address the deficiencies of the rule –
> such as ambiguity about what it means to "limit", as well as (as far
> as I can tell) the question e emself just raised in a different
> thread, about whether the definition of an "action" includes who is
> performing it or its parameters. (I think it does not, but if we're
> going to flesh out the language, that's the kind of thing that should
> be made explicit.)
>
> I don't want to stomp on eir parade, but personally I'd rather take a
> much different approach. I think we could avoid the difficulty of
> defining a regulated action by splitting the "CAN only be performed"
> clause into two simpler precepts:
>
> 1. The gamestate can only be changed as explicitly specified.
>
> 2. A game-defined action can only be performed as explicitly specified.
>
> #1 implies that any action which inherently involves changing the
> gamestate as part of its definition – like, "the action of making omd
> a player" – can only be performed as specified.
>
> #2 deals with actions like "distributing a proposal" where gamestate
> changes are only a *result* of performing the action. IMO, what most
> distinguishes these actions is not the fact that the Rules allow or
> disallow them, per se, but the fact that they have no inherent
> definition: that they're just Rules-defined platonic "thingies". To
> make this clause fully explicit, it could be expanded in two ways: it
> could use a more expansive definition of "game-defined action", along
> the lines of what I just wrote, and it could clarify that there's a
> presumption in favor of interpreting the rules as defining new actions
> rather than referring to existing ones, even when they use
> ordinary-language terminology ("distribute").
>
> On the other hand, the presumption in favor of 'Rules-defined platonic
> thingy' doesn't just apply to actions but also to things, like coins
> or proposals. We don't have any rule making it explicit in the latter
> case, which suggests that we don't need one for the former either.
>
> In fact, I think #1 and #2 can both be left entirely implicit... which
> is why this proposal doesn't introduce any language to replace the
> "CAN only be performed" clause but just repeals it. :)
>
> The "methods explicitly specified" clause is different. It can't be
> left implicit – it's contrary to precedent established before the
> clause was enacted. And that precedent makes sense: if a rule
> explicitly says that something CAN be done (but doesn't say how), who
> are we to decide, without any rule to the contrary, that it CANNOT?
>
> Hence the new language added to "Mother, May I?". The idea is that by
> saying "it is not possible to attempt to perform the action", it can
> still be (vacuously) true that all attempts succeed. That way there's
> no need to override the rule that says the action CAN be performed.
> ]]]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation
This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is.
It was a term of art that my proposal would have created. Just
incorporating my definition here doesn't work as it was "An action is
game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of some binding
entity." That obviously doesn't help in this proposal.
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:26 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 21:20 -0700, omd wrote:
Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)
Repeal Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions").
Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
the following:
For game-defined actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends
on the mechanism the rules define for performing the action.
If no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
perform the action.
This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. In particular,
the new version of the rules leaves it unclear whether it's possible to
attempt to do something that's not defined by the rules but which would
change the gamestate. There should likely at least be a reference to
recordkeepor information.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation
There should likely at least be a reference to
recordkeepor information.
If this gets included, could your proposal clearly resolve CFJ 3740 in
the new Ruleset, please?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:26 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 21:20 -0700, omd wrote:
Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)
Repeal Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions").
Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
the following:
For game-defined actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends
on the mechanism the rules define for performing the action.
If no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
perform the action.
This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. In particular,
the new version of the rules leaves it unclear whether it's possible to
attempt to do something that's not defined by the rules but which would
change the gamestate. There should likely at least be a reference to
recordkeepor information.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 21:20 -0700, omd wrote:
> Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)
>
> Repeal Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions").
>
> Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
>
> 5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
>
> the following:
>
> For game-defined actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends
> on the mechanism the rules define for performing the action.
> If no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
> perform the action.
This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. In particular,
the new version of the rules leaves it unclear whether it's possible to
attempt to do something that's not defined by the rules but which would
change the gamestate. There should likely at least be a reference to
recordkeepor information.
--
ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
Is anyone else interested in Rulekeepor right now? If you are, I'm good with letting an election play out, though I really do enjoy the job. On 6/21/19 5:31 PM, Rebecca wrote: I intend to initiate elections for Promotor, Tailor, ADoP and Rulekeepor, with two support (90 days having passed) (I will stand for ADoP if that intent gets two support. I will not resolve the other intents because I do not wish to stand, but I am making them in case anyone else wishes to do so) -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Proto: Timeline Control Ordnance
Thanks for the comments! Responses inline. > > On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event > Consistent capitalization please :) Fixed, by switching to caps everywhere. > > > and cannot be retroactively modified > > CANNOT? I know you later state that changing it is IMPOSSIBLE w/o time > travel, so this might not be strictly necessary Good point on the redundancy; I removed this instance. > > "The judgement of an inquiry case should be based on the facts and legal > I take issue with "should". I feel like this should be stronger, at > least SHOULD. Perhaps maybe a MUST? I tend to agree with R. Lee's reasoning on this. Also, I don't see SHOULD as being stronger than should; if anything, should might carry more binding force. I certainly don't see a need to impose a MUST, especially given that there isn't one in the current rule. -Aris > I don't really take any issue with the substance of the proposal, it all > seems reasonable to me. > > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/21/19 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > This proposal codifies a few common sense rules about timelines. For > > instance, retroactive modifications are possible, but work by creating > > a legal fiction, rather than by changing what actually happened. It > > also establishes one major new rule: the standard sequence of events > > is secured at power 3.0. This stops lower powered rules from > > disagreeing about the sequence of events, which could potentially > > create a truly weird situation where rules of differing power had > > different visions of the past. Since this rule has to be able to > > override power 3.0 rules, and since ratification is already at power > > 3.1, my new timeline rule would be power 3.1. > > > > -Aris > > > > --- > > Title: Timeline Control Ordnance > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > Enact a new power 3.1 Rule, entitled "Timelines", with the following text: > > > >A timeline is a sequence of events, worldstates, and/or gamestates, > >as entailed by the standard definition of the word "timeline". > > > >The Objective Timeline is the timeline of events as they actually > > happened. > >On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event are > >determined based on the conditions actually in effect when that action > >or event occurred, and cannot be retroactively modified. The Objective > >Timeline is not considered to be part of the gamestate; instead, it is > >the recording of events on reality itself, and changing it retroactively > >without actual time travel is thus IMPOSSIBLE, rules to the contrary > >notwithstanding. > > > >The Standard Timeline is the timeline used for the purposes of ordinary > >gameplay. By default, the Standard Timeline is considered to by defined > >by events or actions in the same way that the Objective Timeline is. > >However, the Standard Timeline is considered to be part of the gamestate. > >Accordingly, it can be modified retroactively. Modifications to the > > Standard > >Timeline other than by events or actions taking place as they actually > >happen are secured at power 3. > > > >Attempted retroactive changes are to be interpreted as attempts to > > change the > >Standard Timeline. All changes are to be interpreted as prospective > > unless > >they are explicitly retroactive. > > > >By default, any entity with a power less than the power of this rule that > >refers to the past (or the future) is to be interpreted as referring to > > events > >on the Standard Timeline; however, entities may explicitly reference > > events > >in a different timeline. > > > > Amend Rule 1551, "Ratification" by changing the text "the gamestate is > > modified" > > to read "the gamestate is retroactively modified". > > > > Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgements", by changing the text > > > >"The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on > >the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was > >initiated, not taking into account any events since that time:" > > > > to read > > > >"The judgement of an inquiry case should be based on the facts and legal > >situation as they objectively existed at the time the inquiry case was > >initiated, not taking into account any events or retroactive > > modifications > >since that time. > > > >The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows:"
Re: DIS: Proto: Timeline Control Ordnance
Thank you for all the comments! My responses are inline. > Overall: Seems quite well designed. Personally I'd prefer to just ban > retroactive modifications, but this proposal would do a good job of > codifying the existing precedent. Thank you! Banning retroactivity might be more elegant, in a way, but I find the current system fun and occasionally useful. > Nits: > > > A timeline is a sequence of events, worldstates, and/or gamestates, > > as entailed by the standard definition of the word "timeline". > > This is a bit wordy; I think you could remove the second line, or > remove the whole paragraph. I'm going with "A timeline is a sequence in time of events, worldstates, and/or gamestates." > > Accordingly, it can be modified retroactively. Modifications to the > > Standard > > Timeline other than by events or actions taking place as they actually > > happen are secured at power 3. > > This could be simplified a bit – perhaps "Accordingly, it can be > modified retroactively; such retroactive modifications are secured at > power 3". That is considerably more elegant; done. > > > By default, any entity with a power less than the power of this rule that > > refers to the past (or the future) is to be interpreted as referring to > > events > > on the Standard Timeline; however, entities may explicitly reference > > events > > in a different timeline. > > Why exclude entities with high power? One reason was because I felt that attempting to change the timeline used by a higher powered rule would violate the safety measures around redefinition. The other reason was that, even if I could get away with it, I didn't want to inadvertently allow the safety measures in Rule 1698 to be subverted by retroactive modification. > > "The judgement of an inquiry case should be based on the facts and legal > > situation as they objectively existed at the time the inquiry case was > > initiated, not taking into account any events or retroactive modifications > > since that time. > > This could be shortened if you just reference the Objective Timeline by name. If people think the word "objectively" is enough, I could leave it at that. The problem is that CFJ regularly reference events on hypothetical timelines, and might want to refer to the Standard or Objective Timelines. I didn't want to stop them from doing so. -Aris
Re: DIS: Proto: Timeline Control Ordnance
CFJs are technically nonbinding, platonically, so a SHOULD is fine. On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > A few small nitpicks: > > > On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event > Consistent capitalization please :) > > > > and cannot be retroactively modified > > CANNOT? I know you later state that changing it is IMPOSSIBLE w/o time > travel, so this might not be strictly necessary > > > > "The judgement of an inquiry case should be based on the facts and legal > I take issue with "should". I feel like this should be stronger, at > least SHOULD. Perhaps maybe a MUST? > > > I don't really take any issue with the substance of the proposal, it all > seems reasonable to me. > > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/21/19 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > This proposal codifies a few common sense rules about timelines. For > > instance, retroactive modifications are possible, but work by creating > > a legal fiction, rather than by changing what actually happened. It > > also establishes one major new rule: the standard sequence of events > > is secured at power 3.0. This stops lower powered rules from > > disagreeing about the sequence of events, which could potentially > > create a truly weird situation where rules of differing power had > > different visions of the past. Since this rule has to be able to > > override power 3.0 rules, and since ratification is already at power > > 3.1, my new timeline rule would be power 3.1. > > > > -Aris > > > > --- > > Title: Timeline Control Ordnance > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > Enact a new power 3.1 Rule, entitled "Timelines", with the following > text: > > > >A timeline is a sequence of events, worldstates, and/or gamestates, > >as entailed by the standard definition of the word "timeline". > > > >The Objective Timeline is the timeline of events as they actually > happened. > >On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event are > >determined based on the conditions actually in effect when that action > >or event occurred, and cannot be retroactively modified. The Objective > >Timeline is not considered to be part of the gamestate; instead, it is > >the recording of events on reality itself, and changing it > retroactively > >without actual time travel is thus IMPOSSIBLE, rules to the contrary > >notwithstanding. > > > >The Standard Timeline is the timeline used for the purposes of > ordinary > >gameplay. By default, the Standard Timeline is considered to by > defined > >by events or actions in the same way that the Objective Timeline is. > >However, the Standard Timeline is considered to be part of the > gamestate. > >Accordingly, it can be modified retroactively. Modifications to the > Standard > >Timeline other than by events or actions taking place as they actually > >happen are secured at power 3. > > > >Attempted retroactive changes are to be interpreted as attempts to > change the > >Standard Timeline. All changes are to be interpreted as prospective > unless > >they are explicitly retroactive. > > > >By default, any entity with a power less than the power of this rule > that > >refers to the past (or the future) is to be interpreted as referring > to events > >on the Standard Timeline; however, entities may explicitly reference > events > >in a different timeline. > > > > Amend Rule 1551, "Ratification" by changing the text "the gamestate is > modified" > > to read "the gamestate is retroactively modified". > > > > Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgements", by changing the text > > > >"The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on > >the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was > >initiated, not taking into account any events since that time:" > > > > to read > > > >"The judgement of an inquiry case should be based on the facts and > legal > >situation as they objectively existed at the time the inquiry case was > >initiated, not taking into account any events or retroactive > modifications > >since that time. > > > >The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows:" > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
You could still bribe them with getting a win in the scam, if it's proposal based. Maybe with the text "X gets a win, then Y gets a win", therefore making the scammer the speaker. This is actually my one regret with the one time I win the game, I should have made me win last haha. On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:38 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 20:00 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Anyhow, I've been contacted for scams at least twice, and refused to > > actively help each time. > > This is the the first thing you've said that's left me less than fully > onboard with you as Promotor :-D > > (I miss the days when you could bribe officers to help you with scams. > They're mostly gone nowadays simply because there's nothing > sufficiently valuable to bribe them /with/.) > > -- > ais523 > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Proto: Timeline Control Ordnance
A few small nitpicks: On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event Consistent capitalization please :) and cannot be retroactively modified CANNOT? I know you later state that changing it is IMPOSSIBLE w/o time travel, so this might not be strictly necessary "The judgement of an inquiry case should be based on the facts and legal I take issue with "should". I feel like this should be stronger, at least SHOULD. Perhaps maybe a MUST? I don't really take any issue with the substance of the proposal, it all seems reasonable to me. Jason Cobb On 6/21/19 11:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: This proposal codifies a few common sense rules about timelines. For instance, retroactive modifications are possible, but work by creating a legal fiction, rather than by changing what actually happened. It also establishes one major new rule: the standard sequence of events is secured at power 3.0. This stops lower powered rules from disagreeing about the sequence of events, which could potentially create a truly weird situation where rules of differing power had different visions of the past. Since this rule has to be able to override power 3.0 rules, and since ratification is already at power 3.1, my new timeline rule would be power 3.1. -Aris --- Title: Timeline Control Ordnance Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Enact a new power 3.1 Rule, entitled "Timelines", with the following text: A timeline is a sequence of events, worldstates, and/or gamestates, as entailed by the standard definition of the word "timeline". The Objective Timeline is the timeline of events as they actually happened. On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event are determined based on the conditions actually in effect when that action or event occurred, and cannot be retroactively modified. The Objective Timeline is not considered to be part of the gamestate; instead, it is the recording of events on reality itself, and changing it retroactively without actual time travel is thus IMPOSSIBLE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. The Standard Timeline is the timeline used for the purposes of ordinary gameplay. By default, the Standard Timeline is considered to by defined by events or actions in the same way that the Objective Timeline is. However, the Standard Timeline is considered to be part of the gamestate. Accordingly, it can be modified retroactively. Modifications to the Standard Timeline other than by events or actions taking place as they actually happen are secured at power 3. Attempted retroactive changes are to be interpreted as attempts to change the Standard Timeline. All changes are to be interpreted as prospective unless they are explicitly retroactive. By default, any entity with a power less than the power of this rule that refers to the past (or the future) is to be interpreted as referring to events on the Standard Timeline; however, entities may explicitly reference events in a different timeline. Amend Rule 1551, "Ratification" by changing the text "the gamestate is modified" to read "the gamestate is retroactively modified". Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgements", by changing the text "The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was initiated, not taking into account any events since that time:" to read "The judgement of an inquiry case should be based on the facts and legal situation as they objectively existed at the time the inquiry case was initiated, not taking into account any events or retroactive modifications since that time. The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows:"
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 20:00 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > Anyhow, I've been contacted for scams at least twice, and refused to > actively help each time. This is the the first thing you've said that's left me less than fully onboard with you as Promotor :-D (I miss the days when you could bribe officers to help you with scams. They're mostly gone nowadays simply because there's nothing sufficiently valuable to bribe them /with/.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Proto: Timeline Control Ordnance
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 8:24 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > This proposal codifies a few common sense rules about timelines. For > instance, retroactive modifications are possible, but work by creating > a legal fiction, rather than by changing what actually happened. Overall: Seems quite well designed. Personally I'd prefer to just ban retroactive modifications, but this proposal would do a good job of codifying the existing precedent. Nits: > A timeline is a sequence of events, worldstates, and/or gamestates, > as entailed by the standard definition of the word "timeline". This is a bit wordy; I think you could remove the second line, or remove the whole paragraph. > Accordingly, it can be modified retroactively. Modifications to the Standard > Timeline other than by events or actions taking place as they actually > happen are secured at power 3. This could be simplified a bit – perhaps "Accordingly, it can be modified retroactively; such retroactive modifications are secured at power 3". > By default, any entity with a power less than the power of this rule that > refers to the past (or the future) is to be interpreted as referring to > events > on the Standard Timeline; however, entities may explicitly reference events > in a different timeline. Why exclude entities with high power? > "The judgement of an inquiry case should be based on the facts and legal > situation as they objectively existed at the time the inquiry case was > initiated, not taking into account any events or retroactive modifications > since that time. This could be shortened if you just reference the Objective Timeline by name.
DIS: Proto: Timeline Control Ordnance
This proposal codifies a few common sense rules about timelines. For instance, retroactive modifications are possible, but work by creating a legal fiction, rather than by changing what actually happened. It also establishes one major new rule: the standard sequence of events is secured at power 3.0. This stops lower powered rules from disagreeing about the sequence of events, which could potentially create a truly weird situation where rules of differing power had different visions of the past. Since this rule has to be able to override power 3.0 rules, and since ratification is already at power 3.1, my new timeline rule would be power 3.1. -Aris --- Title: Timeline Control Ordnance Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Enact a new power 3.1 Rule, entitled "Timelines", with the following text: A timeline is a sequence of events, worldstates, and/or gamestates, as entailed by the standard definition of the word "timeline". The Objective Timeline is the timeline of events as they actually happened. On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event are determined based on the conditions actually in effect when that action or event occurred, and cannot be retroactively modified. The Objective Timeline is not considered to be part of the gamestate; instead, it is the recording of events on reality itself, and changing it retroactively without actual time travel is thus IMPOSSIBLE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. The Standard Timeline is the timeline used for the purposes of ordinary gameplay. By default, the Standard Timeline is considered to by defined by events or actions in the same way that the Objective Timeline is. However, the Standard Timeline is considered to be part of the gamestate. Accordingly, it can be modified retroactively. Modifications to the Standard Timeline other than by events or actions taking place as they actually happen are secured at power 3. Attempted retroactive changes are to be interpreted as attempts to change the Standard Timeline. All changes are to be interpreted as prospective unless they are explicitly retroactive. By default, any entity with a power less than the power of this rule that refers to the past (or the future) is to be interpreted as referring to events on the Standard Timeline; however, entities may explicitly reference events in a different timeline. Amend Rule 1551, "Ratification" by changing the text "the gamestate is modified" to read "the gamestate is retroactively modified". Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgements", by changing the text "The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was initiated, not taking into account any events since that time:" to read "The judgement of an inquiry case should be based on the facts and legal situation as they objectively existed at the time the inquiry case was initiated, not taking into account any events or retroactive modifications since that time. The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows:"
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so
Just to add, the reason we read it that way is because that's how the
dependent action rules are written. They're retrospective; if X and Y
has happened, a player can do Z by announcement. The doing Z is
actually taking the action - the business about announcing intent is
just a precondition. This means you can, for instance, announce intent
for actions that don't exist yet (for instance, because the proposal
to create the rule that allows for the action hasn't been resolved
yet), in the hope that your announcement will later allow you to take
an action once the relevant rule has come into existence.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:54 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> We've always taken it to mean the player who actually takes the action that
> requires support. For example, I have intended to initiate elections but I
> also don't want three of those positions, so I will leave anyone who does
> to actually resolve the intent.
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:46 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > Would you actually be installed into the office? Rule 2598 says
> >
> > >5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has
> > > already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into
> > > the office of Astronomor.
> >
> > I think the most obvious reading is that "that player" would still be R.
> > Lee, since e is the one that announced intent. Do you happen to know if
> > there is precedent for this?
> >
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 6/21/19 10:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > Yes, but then I’d be installed into the relevant office. I don’t want
> > > another office at the moment, and anyway, it would be rude to take it
> > from
> > > R. Lee.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:36 PM Jason Cobb
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> You can do so due to this clause from Rule 2595:
> > >>
> > >>> 4. At least one of the following is true:
> > >>>
> > >>> * the performer is the initiator;
> > >>>
> > >>> * the initiator was authorized to perform the action due
> > to
> > >>>holding a rule-defined position now held by the
> > performer;
> > >>>or
> > >>>
> > >>> * the initiator is authorized to perform the action, the
> > >>>action depends on support, the performer has supported
> > the
> > >>>intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does
> > not
> > >>>explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it;
> > >> Rule 2598 ("Side-Game Suspension") contains no such clause to prohibit
> > >> supporters from doing so.
> > >>
> > >> Jason Cobb
> > >>
> > >> On 6/21/19 10:32 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:18 PM James Cook
> > >> wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 03:35, Rebecca
> > wrote:
> > > I support but I intend with 2 support to revive spce.
> > I support R. Lee's intent to revive spaaace.
> > >>> I also support. R. Lee, remember to do so.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Aris
> > >>>
> >
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
The Promotor has discretion over when e distributes proposals, which is surprisingly important for scams. There are some scams that depend on very tight timing, usually because they require something to be done at the end of the voting period. For instance, there was once a scam where people could withdraw the ballots of other players. Of course, that doesn't help unless you're the last player to vote, and for that to happen you ideally want the voting period to end sometime when you're awake and can be at your computer. Some players use automated scripts for that kind of thing, but even then, one really wants to be there to oversee it in person. The other case where it can come in handy is for a more general scam, where you want your scam proposal to be distributed earlier than the rest of the proposals so you have a head start on any attempt to patch the vulnerability you're exploiting, or you want to know the distribution time so you'll be able to slip your proposal in at the last moment. Anyhow, I've been contacted for scams at least twice, and refused to actively help each time. -Aris On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > How exactly does one abuse the position of Promotor? It doesn't seem > like the office has much discretion over what it does. The only thing I > can see is deciding whether or not to retry FAILED QUORUM proposals. > > Changing the text of a proposal (or something like that) could probably > be construed as a lie or a falsehood published in a report. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/21/19 10:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I assure you, I’m not plotting anything malevolent. I just really enjoy the > > work, and it’s become part of my routine. I’d deeply miss it if no longer > > held the job. On the few occasions where I’ve considered resigning because > > of I have too much to do IRL, I’ve not done so because I’m afraid that the > > next person to take the office might not want to give it up if I wanted it > > back. > > > > Also, any long-standing player can tell you that I’ve been extremely > > scrupulous about avoiding malevolent use Promotorial power. I refuse to use > > it to help in scams, even when people offer bribes. > > > > This message is sent to the public forum so it’s illegal for me to lie. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:32 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > >> That doesn't sound suspicious at all... > >> > >> Jason Cobb > >> > >> On 6/21/19 10:28 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > >>> It’s kind of hard to communicate subtleties over text, so just so I’m > >>> clear: I’d really, really, really like to remain Promotor. :) > >>> > >>> -Aris > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Aris Merchant < > >>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > I would like to remain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind. > > -Aris > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I support the intent for ADoP. > > > > If any non-incumbent supports the others and notes that they want to > >> be a > > candidate, I'll support those too. Happy to keep doing tailor but > >> don't > > mind if someone else wants the job. > > > > On 6/21/2019 4:31 PM, Rebecca wrote: > >> I intend to initiate elections for Promotor, Tailor, ADoP and > Rulekeepor, > >> with two support (90 days having passed) > >> > >> (I will stand for ADoP if that intent gets two support. I will not > > resolve > >> the other intents because I do not wish to stand, but I am making them > in > >> case anyone else wishes to do so) > >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
You can change the order of proposals as Promotor or Assessor which sometimes affects a lot. Also they can still change the text and hope that nobody notices until it becomes self-ratifying. Also support my ADoP intent On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:48 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > How exactly does one abuse the position of Promotor? It doesn't seem > like the office has much discretion over what it does. The only thing I > can see is deciding whether or not to retry FAILED QUORUM proposals. > > Changing the text of a proposal (or something like that) could probably > be construed as a lie or a falsehood published in a report. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/21/19 10:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I assure you, I’m not plotting anything malevolent. I just really enjoy > the > > work, and it’s become part of my routine. I’d deeply miss it if no longer > > held the job. On the few occasions where I’ve considered resigning > because > > of I have too much to do IRL, I’ve not done so because I’m afraid that > the > > next person to take the office might not want to give it up if I wanted > it > > back. > > > > Also, any long-standing player can tell you that I’ve been extremely > > scrupulous about avoiding malevolent use Promotorial power. I refuse to > use > > it to help in scams, even when people offer bribes. > > > > This message is sent to the public forum so it’s illegal for me to lie. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:32 PM Jason Cobb > wrote: > > > >> That doesn't sound suspicious at all... > >> > >> Jason Cobb > >> > >> On 6/21/19 10:28 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > >>> It’s kind of hard to communicate subtleties over text, so just so I’m > >>> clear: I’d really, really, really like to remain Promotor. :) > >>> > >>> -Aris > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Aris Merchant < > >>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > I would like to remain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind. > > -Aris > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I support the intent for ADoP. > > > > If any non-incumbent supports the others and notes that they want to > >> be a > > candidate, I'll support those too. Happy to keep doing tailor but > >> don't > > mind if someone else wants the job. > > > > On 6/21/2019 4:31 PM, Rebecca wrote: > >> I intend to initiate elections for Promotor, Tailor, ADoP and > Rulekeepor, > >> with two support (90 days having passed) > >> > >> (I will stand for ADoP if that intent gets two support. I will not > > resolve > >> the other intents because I do not wish to stand, but I am making > them > in > >> case anyone else wishes to do so) > >> > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so
Don't be sorry for interpreting the rules! I say this only because it's
just what I've always remembered. Also I've taken the office so it doesn't
matter now!
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Ah sorry about that then.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/21/19 10:53 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > We've always taken it to mean the player who actually takes the action
> that
> > requires support. For example, I have intended to initiate elections but
> I
> > also don't want three of those positions, so I will leave anyone who does
> > to actually resolve the intent.
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:46 PM Jason Cobb
> wrote:
> >
> >> Would you actually be installed into the office? Rule 2598 says
> >>
> >>> 5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace
> has
> >>>already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into
> >>>the office of Astronomor.
> >> I think the most obvious reading is that "that player" would still be R.
> >> Lee, since e is the one that announced intent. Do you happen to know if
> >> there is precedent for this?
> >>
> >>
> >> Jason Cobb
> >>
> >> On 6/21/19 10:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>> Yes, but then I’d be installed into the relevant office. I don’t want
> >>> another office at the moment, and anyway, it would be rude to take it
> >> from
> >>> R. Lee.
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:36 PM Jason Cobb
> >> wrote:
> You can do so due to this clause from Rule 2595:
>
> > 4. At least one of the following is true:
> >
> > * the performer is the initiator;
> >
> > * the initiator was authorized to perform the action
> due
> >> to
> > holding a rule-defined position now held by the
> >> performer;
> > or
> >
> > * the initiator is authorized to perform the action,
> the
> > action depends on support, the performer has
> supported
> >> the
> > intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does
> >> not
> > explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it;
> Rule 2598 ("Side-Game Suspension") contains no such clause to prohibit
> supporters from doing so.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/21/19 10:32 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:18 PM James Cook
> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 03:35, Rebecca
> >> wrote:
> >>> I support but I intend with 2 support to revive spce.
> >> I support R. Lee's intent to revive spaaace.
> > I also support. R. Lee, remember to do so.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> >
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so
Ah sorry about that then.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:53 PM, Rebecca wrote:
We've always taken it to mean the player who actually takes the action that
requires support. For example, I have intended to initiate elections but I
also don't want three of those positions, so I will leave anyone who does
to actually resolve the intent.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:46 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Would you actually be installed into the office? Rule 2598 says
5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has
already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into
the office of Astronomor.
I think the most obvious reading is that "that player" would still be R.
Lee, since e is the one that announced intent. Do you happen to know if
there is precedent for this?
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Yes, but then I’d be installed into the relevant office. I don’t want
another office at the moment, and anyway, it would be rude to take it
from
R. Lee.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:36 PM Jason Cobb
wrote:
You can do so due to this clause from Rule 2595:
4. At least one of the following is true:
* the performer is the initiator;
* the initiator was authorized to perform the action due
to
holding a rule-defined position now held by the
performer;
or
* the initiator is authorized to perform the action, the
action depends on support, the performer has supported
the
intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does
not
explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it;
Rule 2598 ("Side-Game Suspension") contains no such clause to prohibit
supporters from doing so.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:32 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:18 PM James Cook
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 03:35, Rebecca
wrote:
I support but I intend with 2 support to revive spce.
I support R. Lee's intent to revive spaaace.
I also support. R. Lee, remember to do so.
-Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so
We've always taken it to mean the player who actually takes the action that
requires support. For example, I have intended to initiate elections but I
also don't want three of those positions, so I will leave anyone who does
to actually resolve the intent.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:46 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Would you actually be installed into the office? Rule 2598 says
>
> >5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has
> > already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into
> > the office of Astronomor.
>
> I think the most obvious reading is that "that player" would still be R.
> Lee, since e is the one that announced intent. Do you happen to know if
> there is precedent for this?
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/21/19 10:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Yes, but then I’d be installed into the relevant office. I don’t want
> > another office at the moment, and anyway, it would be rude to take it
> from
> > R. Lee.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:36 PM Jason Cobb
> wrote:
> >
> >> You can do so due to this clause from Rule 2595:
> >>
> >>> 4. At least one of the following is true:
> >>>
> >>> * the performer is the initiator;
> >>>
> >>> * the initiator was authorized to perform the action due
> to
> >>>holding a rule-defined position now held by the
> performer;
> >>>or
> >>>
> >>> * the initiator is authorized to perform the action, the
> >>>action depends on support, the performer has supported
> the
> >>>intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does
> not
> >>>explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it;
> >> Rule 2598 ("Side-Game Suspension") contains no such clause to prohibit
> >> supporters from doing so.
> >>
> >> Jason Cobb
> >>
> >> On 6/21/19 10:32 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:18 PM James Cook
> >> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 03:35, Rebecca
> wrote:
> > I support but I intend with 2 support to revive spce.
> I support R. Lee's intent to revive spaaace.
> >>> I also support. R. Lee, remember to do so.
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
How exactly does one abuse the position of Promotor? It doesn't seem like the office has much discretion over what it does. The only thing I can see is deciding whether or not to retry FAILED QUORUM proposals. Changing the text of a proposal (or something like that) could probably be construed as a lie or a falsehood published in a report. Jason Cobb On 6/21/19 10:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I assure you, I’m not plotting anything malevolent. I just really enjoy the work, and it’s become part of my routine. I’d deeply miss it if no longer held the job. On the few occasions where I’ve considered resigning because of I have too much to do IRL, I’ve not done so because I’m afraid that the next person to take the office might not want to give it up if I wanted it back. Also, any long-standing player can tell you that I’ve been extremely scrupulous about avoiding malevolent use Promotorial power. I refuse to use it to help in scams, even when people offer bribes. This message is sent to the public forum so it’s illegal for me to lie. -Aris On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:32 PM Jason Cobb wrote: That doesn't sound suspicious at all... Jason Cobb On 6/21/19 10:28 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: It’s kind of hard to communicate subtleties over text, so just so I’m clear: I’d really, really, really like to remain Promotor. :) -Aris On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: I would like to remain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind. -Aris On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: I support the intent for ADoP. If any non-incumbent supports the others and notes that they want to be a candidate, I'll support those too. Happy to keep doing tailor but don't mind if someone else wants the job. On 6/21/2019 4:31 PM, Rebecca wrote: I intend to initiate elections for Promotor, Tailor, ADoP and Rulekeepor, with two support (90 days having passed) (I will stand for ADoP if that intent gets two support. I will not resolve the other intents because I do not wish to stand, but I am making them in case anyone else wishes to do so)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so
Would you actually be installed into the office? Rule 2598 says
5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has
already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into
the office of Astronomor.
I think the most obvious reading is that "that player" would still be R.
Lee, since e is the one that announced intent. Do you happen to know if
there is precedent for this?
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Yes, but then I’d be installed into the relevant office. I don’t want
another office at the moment, and anyway, it would be rude to take it from
R. Lee.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:36 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
You can do so due to this clause from Rule 2595:
4. At least one of the following is true:
* the performer is the initiator;
* the initiator was authorized to perform the action due to
holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer;
or
* the initiator is authorized to perform the action, the
action depends on support, the performer has supported the
intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not
explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it;
Rule 2598 ("Side-Game Suspension") contains no such clause to prohibit
supporters from doing so.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:32 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:18 PM James Cook
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 03:35, Rebecca wrote:
I support but I intend with 2 support to revive spce.
I support R. Lee's intent to revive spaaace.
I also support. R. Lee, remember to do so.
-Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so
Yes, but then I’d be installed into the relevant office. I don’t want
another office at the moment, and anyway, it would be rude to take it from
R. Lee.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:36 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> You can do so due to this clause from Rule 2595:
>
> >4. At least one of the following is true:
> >
> > * the performer is the initiator;
> >
> > * the initiator was authorized to perform the action due to
> > holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer;
> > or
> >
> > * the initiator is authorized to perform the action, the
> > action depends on support, the performer has supported the
> > intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not
> > explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it;
>
> Rule 2598 ("Side-Game Suspension") contains no such clause to prohibit
> supporters from doing so.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/21/19 10:32 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:18 PM James Cook
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 03:35, Rebecca wrote:
> >>> I support but I intend with 2 support to revive spce.
> >> I support R. Lee's intent to revive spaaace.
> >
> > I also support. R. Lee, remember to do so.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> >>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
I have zero objection to Aris maintaining that role On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:40 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I assure you, I’m not plotting anything malevolent. I just really enjoy the > work, and it’s become part of my routine. I’d deeply miss it if no longer > held the job. On the few occasions where I’ve considered resigning because > of I have too much to do IRL, I’ve not done so because I’m afraid that the > next person to take the office might not want to give it up if I wanted it > back. > > Also, any long-standing player can tell you that I’ve been extremely > scrupulous about avoiding malevolent use Promotorial power. I refuse to use > it to help in scams, even when people offer bribes. > > This message is sent to the public forum so it’s illegal for me to lie. > > -Aris > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:32 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > That doesn't sound suspicious at all... > > > > Jason Cobb > > > > On 6/21/19 10:28 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > It’s kind of hard to communicate subtleties over text, so just so I’m > > > clear: I’d really, really, really like to remain Promotor. :) > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Aris Merchant < > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> I would like to remain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind. > > >> > > >> -Aris > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> > > >>> I support the intent for ADoP. > > >>> > > >>> If any non-incumbent supports the others and notes that they want to > > be a > > >>> candidate, I'll support those too. Happy to keep doing tailor but > > don't > > >>> mind if someone else wants the job. > > >>> > > >>> On 6/21/2019 4:31 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > I intend to initiate elections for Promotor, Tailor, ADoP and > > >> Rulekeepor, > > with two support (90 days having passed) > > > > (I will stand for ADoP if that intent gets two support. I will not > > >>> resolve > > the other intents because I do not wish to stand, but I am making > them > > >> in > > case anyone else wishes to do so) > > > > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so
You can do so due to this clause from Rule 2595:
4. At least one of the following is true:
* the performer is the initiator;
* the initiator was authorized to perform the action due to
holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer;
or
* the initiator is authorized to perform the action, the
action depends on support, the performer has supported the
intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not
explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it;
Rule 2598 ("Side-Game Suspension") contains no such clause to prohibit
supporters from doing so.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 10:32 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:18 PM James Cook wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 03:35, Rebecca wrote:
I support but I intend with 2 support to revive spce.
I support R. Lee's intent to revive spaaace.
I also support. R. Lee, remember to do so.
-Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
That doesn't sound suspicious at all... Jason Cobb On 6/21/19 10:28 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: It’s kind of hard to communicate subtleties over text, so just so I’m clear: I’d really, really, really like to remain Promotor. :) -Aris On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: I would like to remain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind. -Aris On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: I support the intent for ADoP. If any non-incumbent supports the others and notes that they want to be a candidate, I'll support those too. Happy to keep doing tailor but don't mind if someone else wants the job. On 6/21/2019 4:31 PM, Rebecca wrote: I intend to initiate elections for Promotor, Tailor, ADoP and Rulekeepor, with two support (90 days having passed) (I will stand for ADoP if that intent gets two support. I will not resolve the other intents because I do not wish to stand, but I am making them in case anyone else wishes to do so)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
It’s kind of hard to communicate subtleties over text, so just so I’m clear: I’d really, really, really like to remain Promotor. :) -Aris On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would like to remain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind. > > -Aris > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > I support the intent for ADoP. > > > > If any non-incumbent supports the others and notes that they want to be a > > candidate, I'll support those too. Happy to keep doing tailor but don't > > mind if someone else wants the job. > > > > On 6/21/2019 4:31 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > > I intend to initiate elections for Promotor, Tailor, ADoP and > Rulekeepor, > > > with two support (90 days having passed) > > > > > > (I will stand for ADoP if that intent gets two support. I will not > > resolve > > > the other intents because I do not wish to stand, but I am making them > in > > > case anyone else wishes to do so) > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
I think the problem is that you’re taking “only works if” in Murphy’s
original text and turning it into “works if and only if” or perhaps even
“works if”.
Ah, thank you. I did make a wrong assumption about that. Yeah, the rest
of my argument does crumble because of that.
For that would make sense, we’d need
to assume that you have the inherent power to alter arbitrary variables,
which doesn’t make sense.
How dare you underestimate me!
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 9:47 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Murhpy’s statement is true, it’s just incomplete. It’s not true that
unregulated actions CAN intrinsically be performed by announcement, but it
is true that regulated actions CANNOT be performed except as the rules
explicitly permit. To put this another way, there may be nothing in the
rules that stops you from from flipping the judge switch by announcement,
but that doesn’t mean you CAN do so. For that would make sense, we’d need
to assume that you have the inherent power to alter arbitrary variables,
which doesn’t make sense.
However, there are some unregulated things you CAN do based on your
inherent power. The traditional example is the action of celebrating.
Saying “I celebrate” is a form of celebration, which makes celebrating a by
announcement action. This works because a) you can inherently do it *and*
b) it’s unregulated. If either of those things weren’t true, you’d be
unable to celebrate by announcement.
So, to explain this logically, what Murphy is trying to say is “If you can
perform an action by announcement, then either the rules allow it or it is
unregulated.” You’re drawing the conclusion that “since this action is
unregulated, you can perform it by announcement”. The logical structure of
your conclusion is:
{
If A, then B or C (Murphy’s statement; if you can perform an action by
announcement, then either that action is permitted by the rules or
unregulated)
B or C (your premise; this action is either unregulated or permitted by the
rules, because by your logic it isn’t regulated)
Therefore A (your conclusion)
}
Which is basically:
{
If A, then B
B
Therefore A.
}
That’s the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
I think the problem is that you’re taking “only works if” in Murphy’s
original text and turning it into “works if and only if” or perhaps even
“works if”.
Also, I’m sorry if I’ve overexplained this, I’m just not sure which of
these explanations will be the most intuitive for you.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 6:16 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Does this happen to be the thread
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg46478.html
?
If so, what ais523 seems to be saying (please forgive me if I
misunderstand) is what the Rules state about specifically regulated
actions. Obviously (well, maybe not so obviously given all the
controversy around this CFJ) I am physically able to breathe even if the
Rules do not give me a mechanism to do so.
As further evidence I cite Murphy's (old?) website at
http://zenith.homelinux.net/agora_acronyms.php , which defines ISIDTID as
I say I do, therefore I do. ("I perform (action)" only works if the
rules enable it, or if the action is unregulated. See Rule 478 for the
definition of performing an action "by announcement", and Rule 2125
for the definition of regulation.)
(it even gets the Rule numbers right). If this is true (and I don't know
if it is or ever was), then it would seem to imply that I could flip
that switch by announcement.
I will, of course, defer to people who have more experience than me in
these matters. I do certainly agree that, for regulated actions, ISIDTID
is certainly a fallacy by Rule 2125. I just can't provide a fully
informed comment on ISIDTID for unregulated actions.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 8:26 PM, James Cook wrote:
I don't think sending a message saying you flip a switch causes the
switch
to flip just because you said it and it's unregulated. I think this is
the
"I say I do, therefore I do" (ISIDTID) fallacy someone told me about on
this list recently.
If I understand right, the only reason to describe regulated actions is
to
cover the case when an action has an ordinary-language meaning as well
as a
rule-defined one. For example, I tried to Declare Apathy by just
declaring
"Apathy" in a message, and if I remember right, regulated actions are the
main reason it didn't work.
On Fri., Jun. 21, 2019, 08:59 Jason Cobb,
wrote:
Reading this, I feel like it asserts that (at least) one of these two
things is correct, but I'm not sure which:
- If two different people claim to do the same thing, they are different
"actions" because different people do them. Person A triggering Side
Game Suspension is a different action than Person B triggering Side Game
Suspension.
- The regulated actions clause can regulate different sets of actions
for different people.
I feel like either would make it so that doing something where the Rules
say nothing about me doing it would be unregulated for me,
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
Murhpy’s statement is true, it’s just incomplete. It’s not true that
unregulated actions CAN intrinsically be performed by announcement, but it
is true that regulated actions CANNOT be performed except as the rules
explicitly permit. To put this another way, there may be nothing in the
rules that stops you from from flipping the judge switch by announcement,
but that doesn’t mean you CAN do so. For that would make sense, we’d need
to assume that you have the inherent power to alter arbitrary variables,
which doesn’t make sense.
However, there are some unregulated things you CAN do based on your
inherent power. The traditional example is the action of celebrating.
Saying “I celebrate” is a form of celebration, which makes celebrating a by
announcement action. This works because a) you can inherently do it *and*
b) it’s unregulated. If either of those things weren’t true, you’d be
unable to celebrate by announcement.
So, to explain this logically, what Murphy is trying to say is “If you can
perform an action by announcement, then either the rules allow it or it is
unregulated.” You’re drawing the conclusion that “since this action is
unregulated, you can perform it by announcement”. The logical structure of
your conclusion is:
{
If A, then B or C (Murphy’s statement; if you can perform an action by
announcement, then either that action is permitted by the rules or
unregulated)
B or C (your premise; this action is either unregulated or permitted by the
rules, because by your logic it isn’t regulated)
Therefore A (your conclusion)
}
Which is basically:
{
If A, then B
B
Therefore A.
}
That’s the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
I think the problem is that you’re taking “only works if” in Murphy’s
original text and turning it into “works if and only if” or perhaps even
“works if”.
Also, I’m sorry if I’ve overexplained this, I’m just not sure which of
these explanations will be the most intuitive for you.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 6:16 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Does this happen to be the thread
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg46478.html
> ?
>
> If so, what ais523 seems to be saying (please forgive me if I
> misunderstand) is what the Rules state about specifically regulated
> actions. Obviously (well, maybe not so obviously given all the
> controversy around this CFJ) I am physically able to breathe even if the
> Rules do not give me a mechanism to do so.
>
> As further evidence I cite Murphy's (old?) website at
> http://zenith.homelinux.net/agora_acronyms.php , which defines ISIDTID as
>
> > I say I do, therefore I do. ("I perform (action)" only works if the
> > rules enable it, or if the action is unregulated. See Rule 478 for the
> > definition of performing an action "by announcement", and Rule 2125
> > for the definition of regulation.)
>
> (it even gets the Rule numbers right). If this is true (and I don't know
> if it is or ever was), then it would seem to imply that I could flip
> that switch by announcement.
>
> I will, of course, defer to people who have more experience than me in
> these matters. I do certainly agree that, for regulated actions, ISIDTID
> is certainly a fallacy by Rule 2125. I just can't provide a fully
> informed comment on ISIDTID for unregulated actions.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/21/19 8:26 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > I don't think sending a message saying you flip a switch causes the
> switch
> > to flip just because you said it and it's unregulated. I think this is
> the
> > "I say I do, therefore I do" (ISIDTID) fallacy someone told me about on
> > this list recently.
> >
> > If I understand right, the only reason to describe regulated actions is
> to
> > cover the case when an action has an ordinary-language meaning as well
> as a
> > rule-defined one. For example, I tried to Declare Apathy by just
> declaring
> > "Apathy" in a message, and if I remember right, regulated actions are the
> > main reason it didn't work.
> >
> > On Fri., Jun. 21, 2019, 08:59 Jason Cobb,
> wrote:
> >
> >> Reading this, I feel like it asserts that (at least) one of these two
> >> things is correct, but I'm not sure which:
> >>
> >> - If two different people claim to do the same thing, they are different
> >> "actions" because different people do them. Person A triggering Side
> >> Game Suspension is a different action than Person B triggering Side Game
> >> Suspension.
> >>
> >> - The regulated actions clause can regulate different sets of actions
> >> for different people.
> >>
> >> I feel like either would make it so that doing something where the Rules
> >> say nothing about me doing it would be unregulated for me, even if the
> >> Rules says something about a different person performing the action (as
> >> long as no player is required to be a recordkeepor of something the
> >> action would change).
> >>
> >> One such action is the assigning of judges to CFJs. Judge is
> >> specifically an untracked CFJ switch, thus no player is "required to be
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
Does this happen to be the thread
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg46478.html ?
If so, what ais523 seems to be saying (please forgive me if I
misunderstand) is what the Rules state about specifically regulated
actions. Obviously (well, maybe not so obviously given all the
controversy around this CFJ) I am physically able to breathe even if the
Rules do not give me a mechanism to do so.
As further evidence I cite Murphy's (old?) website at
http://zenith.homelinux.net/agora_acronyms.php , which defines ISIDTID as
I say I do, therefore I do. ("I perform (action)" only works if the
rules enable it, or if the action is unregulated. See Rule 478 for the
definition of performing an action "by announcement", and Rule 2125
for the definition of regulation.)
(it even gets the Rule numbers right). If this is true (and I don't know
if it is or ever was), then it would seem to imply that I could flip
that switch by announcement.
I will, of course, defer to people who have more experience than me in
these matters. I do certainly agree that, for regulated actions, ISIDTID
is certainly a fallacy by Rule 2125. I just can't provide a fully
informed comment on ISIDTID for unregulated actions.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 8:26 PM, James Cook wrote:
I don't think sending a message saying you flip a switch causes the switch
to flip just because you said it and it's unregulated. I think this is the
"I say I do, therefore I do" (ISIDTID) fallacy someone told me about on
this list recently.
If I understand right, the only reason to describe regulated actions is to
cover the case when an action has an ordinary-language meaning as well as a
rule-defined one. For example, I tried to Declare Apathy by just declaring
"Apathy" in a message, and if I remember right, regulated actions are the
main reason it didn't work.
On Fri., Jun. 21, 2019, 08:59 Jason Cobb, wrote:
Reading this, I feel like it asserts that (at least) one of these two
things is correct, but I'm not sure which:
- If two different people claim to do the same thing, they are different
"actions" because different people do them. Person A triggering Side
Game Suspension is a different action than Person B triggering Side Game
Suspension.
- The regulated actions clause can regulate different sets of actions
for different people.
I feel like either would make it so that doing something where the Rules
say nothing about me doing it would be unregulated for me, even if the
Rules says something about a different person performing the action (as
long as no player is required to be a recordkeepor of something the
action would change).
One such action is the assigning of judges to CFJs. Judge is
specifically an untracked CFJ switch, thus no player is "required to be
the recordkeepor" (assuming CFJ 3740 comes out TRUE or otherwise affirms
this statement). Assume that I create a CFJ, let it be CJF X.
Rule 991 ("Calls for Judgment") reads:
When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so
in a timely fashion. The players eligible to be assigned as judge
are all active players except the initiator and the person barred
(if any). The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge
that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections.
This Rule does not impose requirements on me changing the judge of CFJ
X. It instead regulates assigning the CFJ for the Arbitor (who is not
me) and for "any player eligible to judge that CFJ", which is a
description that I do not fulfill.
Specifically, here is my reasoning:
- If doing the same thing is a different "action" for each different
performer, then the Rules only explicitly regulate the the Arbitor
flipping the judge switch and "any player eligible to judge [CFJ X]"
flipping the judge siwtch. Me flipping the judge switch of CFJ X would
be a completely different action, and thus not regulated by the Rules,
and thus the Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted to proscribe me flipping
that switch.
- If the regulated actions clause regulates different sets of actions of
different people, then there is no wording that explicitly causes it to
be regulated for me. Just like there is no wording that specifically
causes (otherwise unregulated) actions that would violate contracts to
which I am not party to be regulated for me. Therefore, the flipping of
the judge switch of CFJ X would NOT be regulated for me, and the Rules
SHALL NOT be interpreted to proscribe it.
I really hope that my reasoning is flawed in some way because,
otherwise, this is a disturbing precedent. Please tell me if you can see
something.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 9:53 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
I issue the below judgement and claim a reward of 5 coins for issuing
DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
I would like to remain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind. -Aris On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I support the intent for ADoP. > > If any non-incumbent supports the others and notes that they want to be a > candidate, I'll support those too. Happy to keep doing tailor but don't > mind if someone else wants the job. > > On 6/21/2019 4:31 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > I intend to initiate elections for Promotor, Tailor, ADoP and Rulekeepor, > > with two support (90 days having passed) > > > > (I will stand for ADoP if that intent gets two support. I will not > resolve > > the other intents because I do not wish to stand, but I am making them in > > case anyone else wishes to do so) > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
I don't think sending a message saying you flip a switch causes the switch
to flip just because you said it and it's unregulated. I think this is the
"I say I do, therefore I do" (ISIDTID) fallacy someone told me about on
this list recently.
If I understand right, the only reason to describe regulated actions is to
cover the case when an action has an ordinary-language meaning as well as a
rule-defined one. For example, I tried to Declare Apathy by just declaring
"Apathy" in a message, and if I remember right, regulated actions are the
main reason it didn't work.
On Fri., Jun. 21, 2019, 08:59 Jason Cobb, wrote:
> Reading this, I feel like it asserts that (at least) one of these two
> things is correct, but I'm not sure which:
>
> - If two different people claim to do the same thing, they are different
> "actions" because different people do them. Person A triggering Side
> Game Suspension is a different action than Person B triggering Side Game
> Suspension.
>
> - The regulated actions clause can regulate different sets of actions
> for different people.
>
> I feel like either would make it so that doing something where the Rules
> say nothing about me doing it would be unregulated for me, even if the
> Rules says something about a different person performing the action (as
> long as no player is required to be a recordkeepor of something the
> action would change).
>
> One such action is the assigning of judges to CFJs. Judge is
> specifically an untracked CFJ switch, thus no player is "required to be
> the recordkeepor" (assuming CFJ 3740 comes out TRUE or otherwise affirms
> this statement). Assume that I create a CFJ, let it be CJF X.
>
> Rule 991 ("Calls for Judgment") reads:
>
>When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
>eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so
>in a timely fashion. The players eligible to be assigned as judge
>are all active players except the initiator and the person barred
>(if any). The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
>interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
>If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge
>that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections.
>
> This Rule does not impose requirements on me changing the judge of CFJ
> X. It instead regulates assigning the CFJ for the Arbitor (who is not
> me) and for "any player eligible to judge that CFJ", which is a
> description that I do not fulfill.
>
> Specifically, here is my reasoning:
>
> - If doing the same thing is a different "action" for each different
> performer, then the Rules only explicitly regulate the the Arbitor
> flipping the judge switch and "any player eligible to judge [CFJ X]"
> flipping the judge siwtch. Me flipping the judge switch of CFJ X would
> be a completely different action, and thus not regulated by the Rules,
> and thus the Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted to proscribe me flipping
> that switch.
>
> - If the regulated actions clause regulates different sets of actions of
> different people, then there is no wording that explicitly causes it to
> be regulated for me. Just like there is no wording that specifically
> causes (otherwise unregulated) actions that would violate contracts to
> which I am not party to be regulated for me. Therefore, the flipping of
> the judge switch of CFJ X would NOT be regulated for me, and the Rules
> SHALL NOT be interpreted to proscribe it.
>
>
> I really hope that my reasoning is flawed in some way because,
> otherwise, this is a disturbing precedent. Please tell me if you can see
> something.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/21/19 9:53 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > I issue the below judgement and claim a reward of 5 coins for issuing it.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be
> entered in this CFJ.[1] I was subsequently assigned to judge it.
> >
> > Judge Trigon believed that no LEGAL judgement could be assigned to this
> case for reasons explained in an email chain reproduced in a footnote
> here.[2] Judge Trigon's recusal was premised on eir belief that an action
> does not necessarily become regulated when a contract states that it "SHALL
> NOT" be performed.
> >
> > After much consideration, I disagree with that conclusion, and instead
> agree with contrary arguements offered by R. Lee and others. In particular,
> an action is regulated if its "performance" is "limited" by Rule. A
> "limitation" on "performance" does not necessarily mean a limitation on the
> *possibility* of performance of the action. Instead, it can also refer to a
> limitation on the LEGALLY of the performance of the action.
> >
> > In this CFJ, a hypothetical contract would forbids parties from
> breathing, and the rules would prohibit a party from violating that
> contract. The rules would therefore forbid a party to the contract from
> breathing (but not anyone else). The con
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform
Here's an updated version to fix some of the issues in the first version:
Changes:
- G.'s suggestion ("regulation-creating entity" -> "regulation-creating")
- Regulation-creating -> binding
- Fixing omd's issue
- Replacing the last paragraph and list of Rule 1742 to permit contracts
to regulate their own assets
If I see no serious concerns, I'll submit this as a proposal soon.
{
Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations are
binding."
Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") as follows:
Append the following sentence to the first paragraph: "Contracts are
binding."
Append the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning
"Parties to a contract governed by the rules":
Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be
sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include
conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs.
Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in
other binding entities. Only as specified by the Rules,
contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions
that meet these criteria are regulated by the contract. Any
actions that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by the
contract.
Replace the paragraph beginning "A party to a contract CAN" and the
following list with the following text:
A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except
that the performance of them must include at least one announcement:
* Acting on behalf of a party to the contract.
* Revoking destructible assets from the contract.
* Taking liquid assets from the contract.
* The creation, transfer, and destruction of any asset for
which the contract is the backing document.
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An entity is binding if and only if the Rules designate it as such.
The Rules as a whole is an entity that is binding.
An action is regulated by a binding entity if: (1) the entity
directly and explicitly defines, limits, allows, enables, permits,
forbids, or requires its performance; (2) the entity describes the
circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3)
the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for
which the entity requires some player to be a "recordkeepor"; or (4)
the Rules state that the action is regulated by the entity.
The above notwithstanding, if the Rules state that an action is not
regulated by an entity, the action is not regulated by that entity.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a binding entity CAN only
prohibit or forbid an action that it does not define; it CANNOT
modify anything else about the action in any way.
The set of actions that are regulated by an entity is the entity's
set of regulated actions.
An action that is regulated by a binding entity CAN only be
performed as described by the entity, and only using the methods
explicitly specified in the entity for performing the given action.
The entity SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe actions that
are not regulated by it.
An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of
some binding entity.
Retitle Rule 2125 to "Binding Entities".
Set the power of Rule 2125 to 3.1.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 9:08 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Here it is. This one (hopefully) isn't a victim of scope creep. I
actually like this one a lot more because it's so much simpler.
{
Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations are
requirement-creating entities."
Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") as follows:
Append the following sentence to the first paragraph: "Contracts
are requirement-creating entities."
Append the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning
"Parties to a contract governed by the rules":
Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be
sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include
conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs.
Contracts CAN regulate actions that are defined in other
requirement-creating entities. Any actions that meet these are
regulated by the contract. Any actions that do not meet these
criteria are not regulated by the contract.
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An entity is a requirement-creating entity if and only if the
Rules designate it as such. The Rules as a whole is a
requirement-creating entity.
An action is regulated by a requirement-defining entity if: (1)
the entity directly and explicitly defines, limits, allows,
enables, permits, forbids, or requires its performance; (2) the
entity describes the circumstances under which the action would
succeed or fail;
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
Reading this, I feel like it asserts that (at least) one of these two
things is correct, but I'm not sure which:
- If two different people claim to do the same thing, they are different
"actions" because different people do them. Person A triggering Side
Game Suspension is a different action than Person B triggering Side Game
Suspension.
- The regulated actions clause can regulate different sets of actions
for different people.
I feel like either would make it so that doing something where the Rules
say nothing about me doing it would be unregulated for me, even if the
Rules says something about a different person performing the action (as
long as no player is required to be a recordkeepor of something the
action would change).
One such action is the assigning of judges to CFJs. Judge is
specifically an untracked CFJ switch, thus no player is "required to be
the recordkeepor" (assuming CFJ 3740 comes out TRUE or otherwise affirms
this statement). Assume that I create a CFJ, let it be CJF X.
Rule 991 ("Calls for Judgment") reads:
When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so
in a timely fashion. The players eligible to be assigned as judge
are all active players except the initiator and the person barred
(if any). The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge
that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections.
This Rule does not impose requirements on me changing the judge of CFJ
X. It instead regulates assigning the CFJ for the Arbitor (who is not
me) and for "any player eligible to judge that CFJ", which is a
description that I do not fulfill.
Specifically, here is my reasoning:
- If doing the same thing is a different "action" for each different
performer, then the Rules only explicitly regulate the the Arbitor
flipping the judge switch and "any player eligible to judge [CFJ X]"
flipping the judge siwtch. Me flipping the judge switch of CFJ X would
be a completely different action, and thus not regulated by the Rules,
and thus the Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted to proscribe me flipping
that switch.
- If the regulated actions clause regulates different sets of actions of
different people, then there is no wording that explicitly causes it to
be regulated for me. Just like there is no wording that specifically
causes (otherwise unregulated) actions that would violate contracts to
which I am not party to be regulated for me. Therefore, the flipping of
the judge switch of CFJ X would NOT be regulated for me, and the Rules
SHALL NOT be interpreted to proscribe it.
I really hope that my reasoning is flawed in some way because,
otherwise, this is a disturbing precedent. Please tell me if you can see
something.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 9:53 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
I issue the below judgement and claim a reward of 5 coins for issuing it.
***
Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be entered
in this CFJ.[1] I was subsequently assigned to judge it.
Judge Trigon believed that no LEGAL judgement could be assigned to this case for reasons
explained in an email chain reproduced in a footnote here.[2] Judge Trigon's recusal was
premised on eir belief that an action does not necessarily become regulated when a
contract states that it "SHALL NOT" be performed.
After much consideration, I disagree with that conclusion, and instead agree with contrary arguements offered by R. Lee
and others. In particular, an action is regulated if its "performance" is "limited" by Rule. A
"limitation" on "performance" does not necessarily mean a limitation on the *possibility* of
performance of the action. Instead, it can also refer to a limitation on the LEGALLY of the performance of the action.
In this CFJ, a hypothetical contract would forbids parties from breathing, and
the rules would prohibit a party from violating that contract. The rules would
therefore forbid a party to the contract from breathing (but not anyone else).
The contract at issue, and the rules that create contracts generally, have
limited the LEGAL performance of breathing when done by a party to the
hypothetical contract. As a result, the act of breathing would be regulated
when taken by a party to the contract.
That said, the contract cannot affect the LEGALITY or POSSIBILITY of an action
taken by a non-party. As a result, the contract would not limit breathing by
non-parties. Breathing by other people generally would not be limited in any
way, only breathing by parties to the contract. Therefore it is FALSE that
breathing generally would be regulated; only breathing by certain people.
FALSE
-
[1] Judge Trigon recused emself in this message.
On Jun 17, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Reubejn Staley wrote:
Re: DIS: History of "The rules SHALL NOT be interpreted..."
On 6/20/2019 9:56 PM, James Cook wrote: Summary: I can't find any particular reason it's phrased that way. I can't remember any particular discussion over that phrase either. I *do* remember that the "limit, allow, enable, or permit" absolutely *was* assumed to include SHALL NOTs as making things regulated. It was a simplification of: A regulated action is an action satisfying any of the following: a) It is IMPOSSIBLE. b) It is ILLEGAL. c) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while certain conditions are satisfied. d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while certain conditions are satisfied. e) [recordkeepor clause] IN CFJ 3403 (shortly after its adoption) Judge omd took it for granted that something ILLEGAL was regulated: > the sentence "The Rules SHALL NOT be > interpreted so as to unregulated actions" is itself an example of an > action which, by the same rule, "the Rules limit, allow, or permit its > performance". By this reading, interpreting the rules is a regulated > action, and "CAN only be performed as described by the rules". This > includes, most notably, Rule 217 titled "Interpreting the Rules", > which describes many ways in which interpretation is to be performed.
