Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] let's B safe out there
Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion [2022-08-18 09:23]: > > On 8/18/2022 9:07 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > Kerim Aydin via agora-business [2022-08-18 07:51]: > >> I submit the following Proposal: > >> Title: "Time B Safe" > >> AI: 4 > >> co-authors: Jason, Murphy. > >> - > >> > >> Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing: > >> adopted within a four-week period. > >> with: > >> adopted within a real-world (UTC) four-week period. > >> > >> [ > >> In discord, a Power-5 Rule was suggested: "Rules to the contrary > >> notwithstanding, this rule CANNOT be changed in January or February of > >> 2023". > >> > >> Up until the time a proposal to change this rule could take effect before > >> January 2023, Agora would not be ossified. But then you cross a time > >> boundary and Agora would become ossified. One *possible* interpretation of > >> > >>> If any other single change or inseparable group of changes to the > >>> gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause > >>> Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules > >>> to the contrary notwithstanding. > >> > >> is that the "cancelled change" would be time passing! With the conclusion > >> that time had (as a legal fiction) stopped, with no way of getting it > >> started again. So this proposal puts an extra protection on time by making > >> it clear that only "real world" time is relevant. The title a reference B > >> nomic, an established nomic some years back that was killed when they > >> accidentally stopped time or at least couldn't get it started again. > >> ] > > > > I'm not sure this couldn't be circumvented. First of all, because the > > rules don't define the notion of time in any way. The only reasonable > > interpretation is that it refers to time-the-physical-concept, whatever > > that is. So several issues come about. > > So just to be clear, this isn't intended to be a block against a malicious > attack. If someone got the ability to pass an AI=3 rule change they could > always purposefully get around this. The purpose here to make it > painfully clear in the definition that "for these purposes, we're defining > real-world time, we can't use R1698 to accidentally infer a kind of "game > time" that stops. > > The *possibility* of accidentally stopping time (that is, for "real time" > deviating from "game time" due to a logical argument and rules text) was > suggested as a potential unexpected outcome in CFJ 3580, although it was > all very hypothetical: > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3580 > > Overall, there may be other interpretations of an ossification situation > that get us out of any such mess; this proposal is meant to make it just a > wee bit harder/less plausible for a judge to make a convincing "time has > stopped" argument. > > > * I can't think of something that could be reasonably called an *action* > > that causes the event of “being in january”. In any case, that > > transition only happens at a single point in time. > > It's not "actions" that are blocked by R1698 but "changes": > > If any other single change [would ossify the game] > > it is cancelled and does not occur > > And "time changing" is arguably a change. However, it's quite possible > that "time ticking forward" is not a change per se but what happens in the > absence of change (i.e. in common language we speak of "changing clocks" > when we make them deviate from ticking forward, not when they tick forward > normally). So maybe I'm worrying about nothing here. > > > * Time keeps ticking forward. When March would come, all would be > > resolved anyway. > > I don't think that matters for R1698 on January 1 when you're entering the > ossification state. If we create the legal fiction that time can't > progress into Jan 1 without temporary ossification, we'd never get to March. > > > * Can one perform actions without time? We don't know, because the rules > > don't define it. So we should use our common-sense, which says that > > no, you can't. So *that* would ossify Agora and thus not be allowed. > > The minimal set of changes would have to be that the rule was never > > created in the first place. > > > > * It is in the best interest of the game to interpret all of this in a > > way that makes gameplay still possible. > > Yes it's quite likely that this is protecting against something that's > common sense anyway - but again we've got enough history of legal fictions > (like the abovementioned CFJ) that it might be a good precaution anyway? > > > In the end, my particular arguments don't matter too much. I'm just > > saying I think there are enough of them for us to deal with such a rule. This is interesting. Its a nuanced discussion. But I do have a beef with the CFJ you mention. I am by no means a platonist, nor act as one. There are other philosphical standings compatible with Agorans'
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] let's B safe out there
On 8/18/2022 9:07 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > Kerim Aydin via agora-business [2022-08-18 07:51]: >> I submit the following Proposal: >> Title: "Time B Safe" >> AI: 4 >> co-authors: Jason, Murphy. >> - >> >> Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing: >> adopted within a four-week period. >> with: >> adopted within a real-world (UTC) four-week period. >> >> [ >> In discord, a Power-5 Rule was suggested: "Rules to the contrary >> notwithstanding, this rule CANNOT be changed in January or February of >> 2023". >> >> Up until the time a proposal to change this rule could take effect before >> January 2023, Agora would not be ossified. But then you cross a time >> boundary and Agora would become ossified. One *possible* interpretation of >> >>> If any other single change or inseparable group of changes to the >>> gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause >>> Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules >>> to the contrary notwithstanding. >> >> is that the "cancelled change" would be time passing! With the conclusion >> that time had (as a legal fiction) stopped, with no way of getting it >> started again. So this proposal puts an extra protection on time by making >> it clear that only "real world" time is relevant. The title a reference B >> nomic, an established nomic some years back that was killed when they >> accidentally stopped time or at least couldn't get it started again. >> ] > > I'm not sure this couldn't be circumvented. First of all, because the > rules don't define the notion of time in any way. The only reasonable > interpretation is that it refers to time-the-physical-concept, whatever > that is. So several issues come about. So just to be clear, this isn't intended to be a block against a malicious attack. If someone got the ability to pass an AI=3 rule change they could always purposefully get around this. The purpose here to make it painfully clear in the definition that "for these purposes, we're defining real-world time, we can't use R1698 to accidentally infer a kind of "game time" that stops. The *possibility* of accidentally stopping time (that is, for "real time" deviating from "game time" due to a logical argument and rules text) was suggested as a potential unexpected outcome in CFJ 3580, although it was all very hypothetical: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3580 Overall, there may be other interpretations of an ossification situation that get us out of any such mess; this proposal is meant to make it just a wee bit harder/less plausible for a judge to make a convincing "time has stopped" argument. > * I can't think of something that could be reasonably called an *action* > that causes the event of “being in january”. In any case, that > transition only happens at a single point in time. It's not "actions" that are blocked by R1698 but "changes": > If any other single change [would ossify the game] > it is cancelled and does not occur And "time changing" is arguably a change. However, it's quite possible that "time ticking forward" is not a change per se but what happens in the absence of change (i.e. in common language we speak of "changing clocks" when we make them deviate from ticking forward, not when they tick forward normally). So maybe I'm worrying about nothing here. > * Time keeps ticking forward. When March would come, all would be > resolved anyway. I don't think that matters for R1698 on January 1 when you're entering the ossification state. If we create the legal fiction that time can't progress into Jan 1 without temporary ossification, we'd never get to March. > * Can one perform actions without time? We don't know, because the rules > don't define it. So we should use our common-sense, which says that > no, you can't. So *that* would ossify Agora and thus not be allowed. > The minimal set of changes would have to be that the rule was never > created in the first place. > > * It is in the best interest of the game to interpret all of this in a > way that makes gameplay still possible. Yes it's quite likely that this is protecting against something that's common sense anyway - but again we've got enough history of legal fictions (like the abovementioned CFJ) that it might be a good precaution anyway? > In the end, my particular arguments don't matter too much. I'm just > saying I think there are enough of them for us to deal with such a rule. >
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] let's B safe out there
Kerim Aydin via agora-business [2022-08-18 07:51]: > I submit the following Proposal: > Title: "Time B Safe" > AI: 4 > co-authors: Jason, Murphy. > - > > Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing: > adopted within a four-week period. > with: > adopted within a real-world (UTC) four-week period. > > [ > In discord, a Power-5 Rule was suggested: "Rules to the contrary > notwithstanding, this rule CANNOT be changed in January or February of > 2023". > > Up until the time a proposal to change this rule could take effect before > January 2023, Agora would not be ossified. But then you cross a time > boundary and Agora would become ossified. One *possible* interpretation of > > > If any other single change or inseparable group of changes to the > > gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause > > Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules > > to the contrary notwithstanding. > > is that the "cancelled change" would be time passing! With the conclusion > that time had (as a legal fiction) stopped, with no way of getting it > started again. So this proposal puts an extra protection on time by making > it clear that only "real world" time is relevant. The title a reference B > nomic, an established nomic some years back that was killed when they > accidentally stopped time or at least couldn't get it started again. > ] I'm not sure this couldn't be circumvented. First of all, because the rules don't define the notion of time in any way. The only reasonable interpretation is that it refers to time-the-physical-concept, whatever that is. So several issues come about. * I can't think of something that could be reasonably called an *action* that causes the event of “being in january”. In any case, that transition only happens at a single point in time. * Time keeps ticking forward. When March would come, all would be resolved anyway. * Can one perform actions without time? We don't know, because the rules don't define it. So we should use our common-sense, which says that no, you can't. So *that* would ossify Agora and thus not be allowed. The minimal set of changes would have to be that the rule was never created in the first place. * It is in the best interest of the game to interpret all of this in a way that makes gameplay still possible. In the end, my particular arguments don't matter too much. I'm just saying I think there are enough of them for us to deal with such a rule. -- juan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer has had visions of a dark future
On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 09:00 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Ah - that's plausible. On the other hand, I'm thinking that if you could > ratify the ossification statement and thus flip a switch, you could also > perform a direct ratification of that switch without mentioning > ossification. And if so, Agora would not be ossified as long as that > option was available. It's ossified because the direct ratification takes an extra 4 days, and that runs afoul of the 4-week limit – the rest of the process hypothetically takes between 24 and 28 days. (The ratification of the "Agora is not ossified" statement also takes 4 days, but that isn't actually relevant here.) It is not, however, unrecoverable – it's just that the recovery process takes too long for rule 1698 to be happy. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer has had visions of a dark future
On 8/18/2022 7:50 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 07:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 8/18/2022 7:33 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 07:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 8/18/2022 3:18 AM, Madrid via agora-business wrote: > I intend to ratify without objection the following: "Agora is not > ossified." [snip] If such a statement is ratified when it *doesn't* match the conditions, ratifying the statement would lead to an inconsistency between the gamestate and the rules. >>> >>> I'm not convinced. Imagine a situation where making arbitrary rule >>> changes requires a process that takes between 28 and 32 days in length >>> (say we have to RWO a switch first, then go through two rounds of >>> proposals and those 27 days in total). If there's only one switch that >>> matters, I can imagine that ratifying the non-ossification of Agora >>> could flip that switch. >> >> I'm not sure I see the example clearly here (and am fairly sure that an >> indirect effect like that wouldn't work unless it was explicitly described >> in the RWO attempt to the level tabled actions need - which would be a >> different beast?) > > Just to clarify, I'm not sure I'm correct here, but: imagine a > "proposals switch" which makes it possible to turn the proposals system > on and off, with no specific rules-defined method of flipping it. Also > imagine that the security system is changed so that proposals are the > only way to amend rules. > > In this hypothetical, if the proposals switch gets turned off, then any > attempt to get rule changes made necessarily has to start with turning > it back on, so that'd be the first step in any attempt to make an > arbitrary rules change, and that step could make a process that > otherwise fits within the four-week limit take four days longer. > > A ratification of "Agora is not ossified" seems to me like, under rule > 1551, it would flip the proposals switch – it's a gamestate change that > minimally modifies the gamestate to deossify Agora, thus makes the > statement as accurate as possible. Ah - that's plausible. On the other hand, I'm thinking that if you could ratify the ossification statement and thus flip a switch, you could also perform a direct ratification of that switch without mentioning ossification. And if so, Agora would not be ossified as long as that option was available. So trying to ratify "Agora is not ossified" would give the answer "It's already not ossified - you just have to ratify the proposal switch in question to make the rule change"? Of course there may be a way to purposefully contrive a very-weirdly secured switch to make it work, or time it so that by the time the de-ossification intent was mature, it was too late to announce a new intent for the switch itself... -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer has had visions of a dark future
On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 07:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 8/18/2022 7:33 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 07:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 8/18/2022 3:18 AM, Madrid via agora-business wrote: > > > > I intend to ratify without objection the following: "Agora is not > > > > ossified." > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > If such a statement is ratified when it *doesn't* match the conditions, > > > ratifying the statement would lead to an inconsistency between the > > > gamestate and the rules. > > > > I'm not convinced. Imagine a situation where making arbitrary rule > > changes requires a process that takes between 28 and 32 days in length > > (say we have to RWO a switch first, then go through two rounds of > > proposals and those 27 days in total). If there's only one switch that > > matters, I can imagine that ratifying the non-ossification of Agora > > could flip that switch. > > I'm not sure I see the example clearly here (and am fairly sure that an > indirect effect like that wouldn't work unless it was explicitly described > in the RWO attempt to the level tabled actions need - which would be a > different beast?) Just to clarify, I'm not sure I'm correct here, but: imagine a "proposals switch" which makes it possible to turn the proposals system on and off, with no specific rules-defined method of flipping it. Also imagine that the security system is changed so that proposals are the only way to amend rules. In this hypothetical, if the proposals switch gets turned off, then any attempt to get rule changes made necessarily has to start with turning it back on, so that'd be the first step in any attempt to make an arbitrary rules change, and that step could make a process that otherwise fits within the four-week limit take four days longer. A ratification of "Agora is not ossified" seems to me like, under rule 1551, it would flip the proposals switch – it's a gamestate change that minimally modifies the gamestate to deossify Agora, thus makes the statement as accurate as possible. (I also realised that there isn't a paradox here – the ratification of a true statement can cause a gamestate change as long as the statement was false at the time it was made. Say that when the proposals switch is off, that proposals can still be made but only on the first day of each month; then there are going to be occasional times which miss the four-week limit and thus temporarily ossify Agora. Those short lengths of ossification could be removed entirely by flipping the switch; so if you intend to RWO "Agora is not ossified" during one of those periods, but then resolve the intent when it's later in the month and Agora actual isn't ossified, it still flips the switch (it sets the gamestate to what it would be if the switch had been flipped at the time of the intent, and nothing has changed it since, so it's flipped in the present).) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer has had visions of a dark future
On 8/18/2022 7:33 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 07:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 8/18/2022 3:18 AM, Madrid via agora-business wrote: >>> I intend to ratify without objection the following: "Agora is not ossified." >> >> [snip] >> >> If such a statement is ratified when it *doesn't* match the conditions, >> ratifying the statement would lead to an inconsistency between the >> gamestate and the rules. > > I'm not convinced. Imagine a situation where making arbitrary rule > changes requires a process that takes between 28 and 32 days in length > (say we have to RWO a switch first, then go through two rounds of > proposals and those 27 days in total). If there's only one switch that > matters, I can imagine that ratifying the non-ossification of Agora > could flip that switch. I'm not sure I see the example clearly here (and am fairly sure that an indirect effect like that wouldn't work unless it was explicitly described in the RWO attempt to the level tabled actions need - which would be a different beast?) > (Actually, this could lead to an interesting paradox – at the end of > the intent period for the RWO, we have a situation where a gamestate > change – possible to make in zero time, via resolving the intent – > could unossify Agora. This implies that Agora is not ossified. However, > if Agora is not ossified, ratifying the statement has no effect, > because you'd be ratifying a true statement; as such, in that > hypothetical Agora is actually ossified! Agora is thus ossified if and > only if it isn't.) >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer has had visions of a dark future
On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 07:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 8/18/2022 3:18 AM, Madrid via agora-business wrote: > > I intend to ratify without objection the following: "Agora is not ossified." > > [snip] > > If such a statement is ratified when it *doesn't* match the conditions, > ratifying the statement would lead to an inconsistency between the > gamestate and the rules. I'm not convinced. Imagine a situation where making arbitrary rule changes requires a process that takes between 28 and 32 days in length (say we have to RWO a switch first, then go through two rounds of proposals and those 27 days in total). If there's only one switch that matters, I can imagine that ratifying the non-ossification of Agora could flip that switch. (Actually, this could lead to an interesting paradox – at the end of the intent period for the RWO, we have a situation where a gamestate change – possible to make in zero time, via resolving the intent – could unossify Agora. This implies that Agora is not ossified. However, if Agora is not ossified, ratifying the statement has no effect, because you'd be ratifying a true statement; as such, in that hypothetical Agora is actually ossified! Agora is thus ossified if and only if it isn't.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer has had visions of a dark future
On 8/18/2022 3:18 AM, Madrid via agora-business wrote: > I intend to ratify without objection the following: "Agora is not ossified." So this is sorta instructive in terms of the behavior of switches versus attributes. Ossification as per 1698 is a continuously-evaluated condition encoded in the rules. At any given moment, either the game meets the conditions for being ossified, or it doesn't, as per the text of R1698. If a statement "Agora is/is not ossified" is ratified when it matches Agora's current state, nothing happens. It asserts a truth, but it doesn't stop ossification status from later changing if the Rules-described conditions change. If such a statement is ratified when it *doesn't* match the conditions, ratifying the statement would lead to an inconsistency between the gamestate and the rules. This explicitly means that ratification fails, as covered by this clause in R1551: > Ratification CANNOT occur if it would add inconsistencies between > the gamestate and the rules. This is another difference between a continuously-evaluated conditional attribute in the rules and, say, having the status tracked via an ossification switch. -G.
