DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I strongly oppose this rule because it is dangerous. We just need to be more 
careful in the future.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Sep 8, 2017, at 11:50 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Title: Mother, May I?
> AI: 3
> Amend rule 2152 by replacing "MAY: Performing the described action
> does not violate the rules." with "MAY: Performing the described
> action does not violate the rules and attempts to perform the
> described action are successful"
> 
> I submit and pend the above paying 1 shiny.
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J Rada



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


Rule 2431 doesn't seem to restrict where specifications can be made.


"With Agoran Consent" is sufficient to restrict this to being done via 
the public fora, because rule 1728 specifies that an action with that 
constraint can be done by announcement (“thereby allows em to perform 
the action by announcement if…”).


I mean the specification by a competing Player in the second paragraph, 
there's no Consent on that.



Rule 2495 is unclear on what needs to be public.


Less so than you’d think, by the same coin, but there are some unbound 
CANs here.


I guess it's just the first paragraph (applies to a SHALL too).

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 9, 2017, at 1:39 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> 
>> Nope the text for CAN is this: "
>> 
>> CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
>> all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
>> that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure.
> 
> Hm so searching for CAN...
> 
> Rule 2431 doesn't seem to restrict where specifications can be made.

"With Agoran Consent" is sufficient to restrict this to being done via the 
public fora, because rule 1728 specifies that an action with that constraint 
can be done by announcement (“thereby allows em to perform the action by 
announcement if…”).

> Rule 103 doesn't seem to say how the Prime Minister can appoint a Speaker.
> 
> Rule 2451 doesn't require announcement of Cabinet Orders themselves, nor for 
> assigning emself as judge (the other two options have publishing requirements 
> elsewhere).
> 
> Rule 2495 is unclear on what needs to be public.

Less so than you’d think, by the same coin, but there are some unbound CANs 
here.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[Aris Merchant]

There's something that might maybe possibly help if this ever needs to
be fixed by judicial fiat:

"Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance with
the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of these
actions via Fora in order to play the game.  The game may be won, but
the game never ends." (Rule 101)

It makes it just plausible that actions other than through the Fora
don't work. Not very plausible though, partly because of the "results
of these actions" bit.

-Aris




On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:46 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> ninja'd
>
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>>
>>> Nope the text for CAN is this: "
>>>
>>> CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
>>> all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
>>> that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure.
>>
>>
>> Hm so searching for CAN...
>>
>> Rule 2431 doesn't seem to restrict where specifications can be made.
>>
>> Rule 103 doesn't seem to say how the Prime Minister can appoint a Speaker.
>>
>> Rule 2451 doesn't require announcement of Cabinet Orders themselves, nor for
>> assigning emself as judge (the other two options have publishing
>> requirements elsewhere).
>>
>> Rule 2495 is unclear on what needs to be public.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


ninja'd


*MWAHAHAHA*

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


"Using existing terminology (I hope correctly), an action which CAN be
performed, if the rules impose no other constraints, can be done in
any way at all"

Here's a list (it's quite short) of CANs w/out "by announcement", "w/o
objection" or anything similar.
"The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal Pool
at any time."


This is fine because distribution is defined more precisely elsewhere.


"A player CAN expedite a proposal whose adoption index is at most 1.5,
in a message containing the character string "[Expedition]" in the
subject line,"


I think this is also fine, assuming the message has to be the same in 
which e performs the listed option.



"then the Prime Minister CAN and SHALL, once and in a timely fashion,
appoint a Laureled player to the office of Speaker."
"Once per week and except as otherwise forbidden by this rule, the
current Prime Minister CAN issue a Cabinet Order and perform the
action(s) authorized by that Order."


Yep, got those too.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[VJ Rada]

ninja'd

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>
>> Nope the text for CAN is this: "
>>
>> CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
>> all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
>> that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure.
>
>
> Hm so searching for CAN...
>
> Rule 2431 doesn't seem to restrict where specifications can be made.
>
> Rule 103 doesn't seem to say how the Prime Minister can appoint a Speaker.
>
> Rule 2451 doesn't require announcement of Cabinet Orders themselves, nor for
> assigning emself as judge (the other two options have publishing
> requirements elsewhere).
>
> Rule 2495 is unclear on what needs to be public.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[VJ Rada]

"Using existing terminology (I hope correctly), an action which CAN be
performed, if the rules impose no other constraints, can be done in
any way at all"

Here's a list (it's quite short) of CANs w/out "by announcement", "w/o
objection" or anything similar.
"The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal Pool
at any time."
"A player CAN expedite a proposal whose adoption index is at most 1.5,
in a message containing the character string "[Expedition]" in the
subject line,"
"then the Prime Minister CAN and SHALL, once and in a timely fashion,
appoint a Laureled player to the office of Speaker."
"Once per week and except as otherwise forbidden by this rule, the
current Prime Minister CAN issue a Cabinet Order and perform the
action(s) authorized by that Order."


On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 9, 2017, at 1:04 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> Nope the text for CAN is this: "
>>
>> CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
>> all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
>> that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure.
>
> What the esteemed G. is saying is that enabling an action, without 
> restriction, is dangerous, and applying that to every single place in the 
> rules where MAY is present needs much more thorough review.
>
> Using existing terminology (I hope correctly), an action which CAN be 
> performed, if the rules impose no other constraints, can be done in any way 
> at all - including a-d posts, private messages, or even in the secrecy of 
> ones’ own head. An action which CAN be performed by announcement is more 
> limited, and is only successful if done via a public forum (r. 478, “Fora”).
>
> Existing rules that use CAN are, generally, fairly careful of that 
> distinction. Rules that don’t use CAN aren’t. Simply tacking “and attempts 
> are successful” onto MAY means that rules such as r. 2467 would permit 
> unpublished, secret attempts to perform the action to succeed, making the 
> game state in large part unknowable.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:


Nope the text for CAN is this: "

CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure.


Hm so searching for CAN...

Rule 2431 doesn't seem to restrict where specifications can be made.

Rule 103 doesn't seem to say how the Prime Minister can appoint a Speaker.

Rule 2451 doesn't require announcement of Cabinet Orders themselves, nor 
for assigning emself as judge (the other two options have publishing 
requirements elsewhere).


Rule 2495 is unclear on what needs to be public.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 9, 2017, at 1:04 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Nope the text for CAN is this: "
> 
> CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
> all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
> that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure.

What the esteemed G. is saying is that enabling an action, without restriction, 
is dangerous, and applying that to every single place in the rules where MAY is 
present needs much more thorough review.

Using existing terminology (I hope correctly), an action which CAN be 
performed, if the rules impose no other constraints, can be done in any way at 
all - including a-d posts, private messages, or even in the secrecy of ones’ 
own head. An action which CAN be performed by announcement is more limited, and 
is only successful if done via a public forum (r. 478, “Fora”).

Existing rules that use CAN are, generally, fairly careful of that distinction. 
Rules that don’t use CAN aren’t. Simply tacking “and attempts are successful” 
onto MAY means that rules such as r. 2467 would permit unpublished, secret 
attempts to perform the action to succeed, making the game state in large part 
unknowable.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[Kerim Aydin]

Sorry, I got the default reversed, you're right.  Your language works
because of this:
   Restricted Actions CAN only be performed as described by the
   Rules.  
and the "be performed as described" means you have to describe how its 
done for it to be allowable (i.e. the rules have to describe that it
is to be performed "by announcement" or "without Objection" or whatever
method is to be used).  So a CAN on its own can't be done any way -
it can be done no way.

Anyway, while your langauge works and may convenient to add, that's
why it has nothing to do with the recent breakage that was due to the
lack of a "by announcement", not the question of whether MAY => CAN.

Or were you just doing this for its own sake, nothing to do with the
breakage?

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Nope the text for CAN is this: "
> 
> CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
> all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
> that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure.
> 
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > No.  No no no no no.  No.
> >
> > CAN isn't successful either, UNLESS THERE'S A BY ANNOUNCEMENT.
> >
> > The problem ISN'T SHALL and CAN.  It's the missing "by announcement".
> > That's what the CFJs say.
> >
> > You've just said "if it says MAY, attempts to do it *are successful*.
> > Even if done in Discussion.  Even if done in private.  Even if done
> > in your head.  In a high-level definition.
> >
> > On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> Title: Mother, May I?
> >> AI: 3
> >> Amend rule 2152 by replacing "MAY: Performing the described action
> >> does not violate the rules." with "MAY: Performing the described
> >> action does not violate the rules and attempts to perform the
> >> described action are successful"
> >>
> >> I submit and pend the above paying 1 shiny.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J Rada
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[VJ Rada]

Nope the text for CAN is this: "

CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.". That's
all. So this is just mirroring that. If you want to make an argument
that you can do anything with a CAN in private, sure.

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> No.  No no no no no.  No.
>
> CAN isn't successful either, UNLESS THERE'S A BY ANNOUNCEMENT.
>
> The problem ISN'T SHALL and CAN.  It's the missing "by announcement".
> That's what the CFJs say.
>
> You've just said "if it says MAY, attempts to do it *are successful*.
> Even if done in Discussion.  Even if done in private.  Even if done
> in your head.  In a high-level definition.
>
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> Title: Mother, May I?
>> AI: 3
>> Amend rule 2152 by replacing "MAY: Performing the described action
>> does not violate the rules." with "MAY: Performing the described
>> action does not violate the rules and attempts to perform the
>> described action are successful"
>>
>> I submit and pend the above paying 1 shiny.
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J Rada
>>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Mother, Can I?

[Kerim Aydin]

No.  No no no no no.  No.

CAN isn't successful either, UNLESS THERE'S A BY ANNOUNCEMENT.

The problem ISN'T SHALL and CAN.  It's the missing "by announcement".
That's what the CFJs say.

You've just said "if it says MAY, attempts to do it *are successful*.
Even if done in Discussion.  Even if done in private.  Even if done
in your head.  In a high-level definition.  

On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Title: Mother, May I?
> AI: 3
> Amend rule 2152 by replacing "MAY: Performing the described action
> does not violate the rules." with "MAY: Performing the described
> action does not violate the rules and attempts to perform the
> described action are successful"
> 
> I submit and pend the above paying 1 shiny.
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J Rada
>