Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:39 -0400, comex wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, the conflict is directly between R3.1 and R101. The conflict resolution > > is *defined* by R1482 as favoring R3.1. This works fine, just as having a > > simple definition of a term in a lower powered rule works to modify the > > action > > between two high-powered rules in other cases. (In other words, there's no > > inherent conflict between R101 and R1482 to consider). > > If R101 says that R101 takes precedence over R3.1, and R1482 says that > R3.1 takes precedence over R101, that is a conflict, and R101 wins. > > Whether R101 does indeed claim to take precedence is debatable. One problem is that R101 takes precedence over the rule defining precedence; the rule defining precedence says so! This is almost a paradox in its own right... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But, seriously, it would really be against the oldest of all game >> custom if we couldn't make arbitrary changes to the ruleset somehow. > > Not to mention being in direct conflict with the central premise of > The Paradox of Self-Amendment. Oh, not that bad. Other simple solution: Amending the R101 preamble to remove the langauge of "no interpretation of law may abridge..." into a statement of general precedence does not *in itself* abridge any particular right. Once that's gone, R101 rights can *then* be removed, abridged, whatever. Doesn't even need Power 3.1, just two successive power 3 modifications. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, the conflict is directly between R3.1 and R101. The conflict resolution > is *defined* by R1482 as favoring R3.1. This works fine, just as having a > simple definition of a term in a lower powered rule works to modify the action > between two high-powered rules in other cases. (In other words, there's no > inherent conflict between R101 and R1482 to consider). If R101 says that R101 takes precedence over R3.1, and R1482 says that R3.1 takes precedence over R101, that is a conflict, and R101 wins. Whether R101 does indeed claim to take precedence is debatable.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 07:14:59 am Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > > Proposal: Repeal Rule 101! > > Adoption index: 3. > > Word of advice: If you want this to work, make this power 3.1, > enact a Rule (power 3.1) that says "Rule 101 CAN be repealed by a > Proposal of power 3.1". *Then* repeal Rule 101, then repeal the > power 3.1 Rule (all in the same proposal). > > Otherwise it's trivial to claim that repealing Rule 101 removes > rights, and R101 has precedence over the current rules governing > rules repeal. > > -Goethe Okay, how about if we just delete the preamble from R101? We're not removing any rights, just the definition of the word "right".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 14:28 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That exact suggestion (abandon and restart) is what led to 4 proposals > > getting rid of 2/3 of the ruleset, and (incidentally) the new R101. -G. > > I hit my Panic Button, build a Phoenix Egg, and declare myself to be a > Revolutionary. A Phoenix Egg does the exact opposite of what we want, and besides, they're easy enough to simulate by hand in a non-code-nomic. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In tusho's proposal, the power 3.1 Rule doesn't actually repeal 101 when >> the rule is created. It enables the Repealing, but it doesn't do it. >> So that step doesn't remove, abridge, etc. a right. >> >> Once it's in place, it supersedes Rule 101, so it can repeal R101 >> and remove rights even though R101 claims it can't. > > > Let's call the new rule Rule X. > > Rule 1482 says Rule X beats Rule 101. > > Rule 1482 claims to take precedence over (and prevent the creation > of!) any rule that would stipulate any other means of determining > precedence. > > But Rule 101 claims to take precedence over Rule 1482, if you agree > that Rule 1482 would "allow restrictions of a person's rights or > privileges" (by having Rule X take precedence over Rule 101). > > This is a conflict between Rule 1482 and Rule 101, which have the same > power. Rule 1030 says Rule 101 wins... No, the conflict is directly between R3.1 and R101. The conflict resolution is *defined* by R1482 as favoring R3.1. This works fine, just as having a simple definition of a term in a lower powered rule works to modify the action between two high-powered rules in other cases. (In other words, there's no inherent conflict between R101 and R1482 to consider). -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That exact suggestion (abandon and restart) is what led to 4 proposals > getting rid of 2/3 of the ruleset, and (incidentally) the new R101. -G. I hit my Panic Button, build a Phoenix Egg, and declare myself to be a Revolutionary.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Charles Reiss wrote: > Just abandon the game, and create a new one (Agora Second Era!) > copying the game state (lots of simulation of retroactive things) from > before we dissolved the game, except with R101 missing. That exact suggestion (abandon and restart) is what led to 4 proposals getting rid of 2/3 of the ruleset, and (incidentally) the new R101. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But, seriously, it would really be against the oldest of all game > custom if we couldn't make arbitrary changes to the ruleset somehow. Not to mention being in direct conflict with the central premise of The Paradox of Self-Amendment. Can we modify R101 to only claim to take precedence over rules that *directly* allow restrictions of rights, and not those that could indirectly allow such restrictions to happen? I assume that if comex's argument holds that simply increasing the power of R1482 wouldn't work, since then arguably R101 takes precedence over R105 in allowing this increase in power, since it could subsequently be used to remove rights.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 12:17 -0600, Charles Reiss wrote: > But, seriously, it would really be against the oldest of all game > custom if we couldn't make arbitrary changes to the ruleset somehow. What came first, rule 101 or the Town Fountain? If the Town Fountain came first then it's always had precedence over rule 101, so we could try to scam it somehow -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 12:08, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In tusho's proposal, the power 3.1 Rule doesn't actually repeal 101 when >> the rule is created. It enables the Repealing, but it doesn't do it. >> So that step doesn't remove, abridge, etc. a right. >> >> Once it's in place, it supersedes Rule 101, so it can repeal R101 >> and remove rights even though R101 claims it can't. > > > Let's call the new rule Rule X. > > Rule 1482 says Rule X beats Rule 101. > > Rule 1482 claims to take precedence over (and prevent the creation > of!) any rule that would stipulate any other means of determining > precedence. > > But Rule 101 claims to take precedence over Rule 1482, if you agree > that Rule 1482 would "allow restrictions of a person's rights or > privileges" (by having Rule X take precedence over Rule 101). > > This is a conflict between Rule 1482 and Rule 101, which have the same > power. Rule 1030 says Rule 101 wins... > > Just thinking out loud. > A modest proposal: Just abandon the game, and create a new one (Agora Second Era!) copying the game state (lots of simulation of retroactive things) from before we dissolved the game, except with R101 missing. But, seriously, it would really be against the oldest of all game custom if we couldn't make arbitrary changes to the ruleset somehow. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In tusho's proposal, the power 3.1 Rule doesn't actually repeal 101 when > the rule is created. It enables the Repealing, but it doesn't do it. > So that step doesn't remove, abridge, etc. a right. > > Once it's in place, it supersedes Rule 101, so it can repeal R101 > and remove rights even though R101 claims it can't. Let's call the new rule Rule X. Rule 1482 says Rule X beats Rule 101. Rule 1482 claims to take precedence over (and prevent the creation of!) any rule that would stipulate any other means of determining precedence. But Rule 101 claims to take precedence over Rule 1482, if you agree that Rule 1482 would "allow restrictions of a person's rights or privileges" (by having Rule X take precedence over Rule 101). This is a conflict between Rule 1482 and Rule 101, which have the same power. Rule 1030 says Rule 101 wins... Just thinking out loud.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Ben Caplan wrote: > On Tuesday 12 August 2008 11:50:46 am you wrote: >> On Tuesday 12 August 2008 08:54:45 am Elliott Hird wrote: >>> Repeal rule 101. >> >> I come off hold, as I want to be able to vote against this. >> >> Pavitra > > In particular, I think we should keep rights ii, iii, and viii, and > probably also v, vii, and maybe vi. None of the rights in R101 were added when this version of R101 was written, they were just pulled together from different parts of the Rules and called "rights". iv was a direct result of Mousetrap (biggest scam EVAR!!) and has come up many times prior to the "rights" form (e.g. CFJs 1289-1290). An old version: No Player shall ever be made part of the Jurisdiction of the SLC [Subordinate Legal Code; eg contract text] of any Organization without eir consent. No Player shall ever be made part of the Jurisdiction of the SLC of any Organization without eir consent. If equity judgements are no longer agreements in their own right, there's no problem I can see with iv. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote: > I think R101 is here to stay; it's also possible to claim that any > change to the ruleset that makes it possible to repeal rule 101 is an > indirect method of removing rights. (If there's a rule that allows > repealing rule 101, that rule itself is removing rights, so by rule 101 > it cannot have been created in the first place). Does the Town Fountain > predate rule 101? If it does, we might have a chance... No, we just use minor cleverness. In tusho's proposal, the power 3.1 Rule doesn't actually repeal 101 when the rule is created. It enables the Repealing, but it doesn't do it. So that step doesn't remove, abridge, etc. a right. Once it's in place, it supersedes Rule 101, so it can repeal R101 and remove rights even though R101 claims it can't. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Charles Reiss wrote: > Anyways, the real broken things about R101 are: > (a) that it was devised under the idea that the rules would be > adjudicated as an agreement (making the R101 right regarding > amendments to agreements apply to proposals), but for a long while, > the rules have lacked essential features that would make that > possible. The rules do not call themselves an agreement. The rules > purport that agreements only bind their parties but themselves purport > to bind people who have not necessarily followed an R101-adequate > procedure for binding themselves to the rules. The rules adjudicate > their own disputes using the criminal courts rather than the mechanism > they reserve for agreements. Actually, the original version put into place in the Great Repeals did call the Rules a contract, and limited agreements to Players, so the "act of becoming a Player" was identical to the "act of agreeing to the Rules contract" and identical to the "act of being subject to any part of the Rules including the rules dealing with contract adjudication." For some reason it was later thought desirable to allow non-players to be part of it all through partnerships, which I never quite understood. > Now, the response to proposals that would formally make the rules an > agreement has not been great, though the proposals have, to me, seemed > flawed in how they deal with reconcile the R101 explicit consent right > with allowing influence over the game state -- a tricky problem > indeed. (We should make it so non-parties to the rules can't influence > the game state except in special circumstances. And, if we want to > maintain the status quo, we should make it so either clear (in R101) > that intent to influence the game or clear intent to register > constitute R101-consent to become party to the rules.) I think trying to make the Rules back into a contract is pretty dead. > and (b) that the equity case rule purports the make new agreements > which is problematic under R101 explicit-consent rules. The real > problem here, I think, is that we have trouble distinguishing what > constitutes part of an R101 agreement (which we should consider > possibly different from what an agreement might be in lower-power > rules[*]). > The fix for this? I liked the amendment form of equity, but that > proposal seemed unpopular for bookkeeping purposes. An > explicit-consent exception for agreements reasonably anticipated from > prior agreements or similar might make sense. Maybe? The Rules aren't a contract and can still impose obligations. Why not just say that an equity settlement is a "set of SHALL or SHALL NOT obligations" without calling them an agreement. Further, for non-players or enforcement, just say "the Judge can act on the parties' behalf if the party doesn't do it emself." -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 11:50:46 am you wrote: > On Tuesday 12 August 2008 08:54:45 am Elliott Hird wrote: > > Repeal rule 101. > > I come off hold, as I want to be able to vote against this. > > Pavitra In particular, I think we should keep rights ii, iii, and viii, and probably also v, vii, and maybe vi.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tuesday 12 August 2008 11:19:26 am ais523 wrote: > I think R101 is here to stay; it's also possible to claim that any > change to the ruleset that makes it possible to repeal rule 101 is > an indirect method of removing rights. (If there's a rule that > allows repealing rule 101, that rule itself is removing rights, so > by rule 101 it cannot have been created in the first place). Does > the Town Fountain predate rule 101? If it does, we might have a > chance... No, merely creating the possibility of removing rights does not in itself constitute such a removal. For similar reasons, it is possible to repeal R1698 without contradicting R1698.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 05:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > > Proposal: Repeal Rule 101! > > Adoption index: 3. > > Word of advice: If you want this to work, make this power 3.1, enact a > Rule (power 3.1) that says "Rule 101 CAN be repealed by a Proposal of > power 3.1". *Then* repeal Rule 101, then repeal the power 3.1 Rule > (all in the same proposal). > > Otherwise it's trivial to claim that repealing Rule 101 removes rights, > and R101 has precedence over the current rules governing rules repeal. > > -Goethe I think R101 is here to stay; it's also possible to claim that any change to the ruleset that makes it possible to repeal rule 101 is an indirect method of removing rights. (If there's a rule that allows repealing rule 101, that rule itself is removing rights, so by rule 101 it cannot have been created in the first place). Does the Town Fountain predate rule 101? If it does, we might have a chance... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [*] Lower-power rules notion of agreement is largely influenced by the >> properties they ascribe to contracts, but if we let these characterize >> agreements entirely from R101 purposes, this suggests an obvious >> end-run around the R101 agreement rights. > > Hmm... never thought of that. > > On the other hand, in the case of equations, R101 using the definition > from the lower-power rules would enhance, not limit, the R101 > agreement rights: in fact, using a more vague definition of agreement > would, IMO, limit them. And no interpretation of Agoran law may > abridge, reduce, limit, or remove a person's defined rights... I think you're probably right about R101 and equity, though the ease with which the effect of such an agreement could be simulated by a rule of that power (see that recent proposal) allows a reasonable different interpretation. Or, alternately, the real problem is that R101 is protecting the wrong rights: the issue isn't agreements one doesn't consent to, but duties for which you are unfairly singled out (not on the basis of some reasonable property, like having violated a promise/rule/etc., or having genuinely agreed to do something for someone). - woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [*] Lower-power rules notion of agreement is largely influenced by the > properties they ascribe to contracts, but if we let these characterize > agreements entirely from R101 purposes, this suggests an obvious > end-run around the R101 agreement rights. Hmm... never thought of that. On the other hand, in the case of equations, R101 using the definition from the lower-power rules would enhance, not limit, the R101 agreement rights: in fact, using a more vague definition of agreement would, IMO, limit them. And no interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or remove a person's defined rights...
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 04:39, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Proposal: Repeal Rule 101! > Adoption index: 3. > Interest index: 1. > > [Before we start, let me please justify this. > > Rule 101 is broken. > > Firstly, we are on a game played via computers. Really, we have no > inherent rights at all. (I'm aware of the "society" view. I personally think > it's silly, but I can understand it. Even so, let's continue.) > > Additionally, there isn't really that much reason to stop some of the > "rights" there being abridged - e.g. (iii), (vii). ALREADY TRIED is already > in the CFJ system, so it's kind of duplication (and any non-ALREADY > TRIED judgement for something already tried will probably be appealed > anyway.) ALREADY TRIED and CFJs themselves are in a Power 1.7 rule, which is deliberately much easier to scam. R101(iii) combined with R1698 is a kind-of weak version of B Nomic's emergency: using a Power higher than is likely to be touched by any ordinary scam to guarantee some essential elements of the game. > Finally, (vi). The distributor can ban someone from the lists. Yet, precedent > has it that when an action would "violate" Rule 101 it just doesn't happen. I think that such precedent only exists for actions which are legal fictions of the game. For actions the rules can inherently not regulate, a great argument can be made in a criminal case. And, well, the big problem with the right to participate in the forum is that no one really knows what it means. But banning someone from the forum is probably more clearly a violation of the Power 3 R478, regardless. > Therefore, the person would be banned and unable to participate in the > fora, and yet (vi) says that no, that's impossible, they CAN participate in > them. It makes no sense.] So, more importantly, you are ignoring one of the most important R101 rights, the right not to be considered bound by an agreement or amendment to an agreement one has not had an adequate opportunity to review -- a right which my understanding was enacted in response to one of the most divisive scams in Agoran history. And if you want to reflect that it is just a game in the rules, then you should preserve some form of R101(viii) as that "right" says it's really a game: one can stop playing without other penalty. I don't think that right comes from the society interpretation -- it's more of a "relax everyone; it's not that important!". Anyways, the real broken things about R101 are: (a) that it was devised under the idea that the rules would be adjudicated as an agreement (making the R101 right regarding amendments to agreements apply to proposals), but for a long while, the rules have lacked essential features that would make that possible. The rules do not call themselves an agreement. The rules purport that agreements only bind their parties but themselves purport to bind people who have not necessarily followed an R101-adequate procedure for binding themselves to the rules. The rules adjudicate their own disputes using the criminal courts rather than the mechanism they reserve for agreements. Now, the response to proposals that would formally make the rules an agreement has not been great, though the proposals have, to me, seemed flawed in how they deal with reconcile the R101 explicit consent right with allowing influence over the game state -- a tricky problem indeed. (We should make it so non-parties to the rules can't influence the game state except in special circumstances. And, if we want to maintain the status quo, we should make it so either clear (in R101) that intent to influence the game or clear intent to register constitute R101-consent to become party to the rules.) and (b) that the equity case rule purports the make new agreements which is problematic under R101 explicit-consent rules. The real problem here, I think, is that we have trouble distinguishing what constitutes part of an R101 agreement (which we should consider possibly different from what an agreement might be in lower-power rules[*]). If we consider it characterized primarily by the set of obligations carried, then a good equity judgment is easily considered a minor amendment of the original agreement. If it's primarily characterized by severability, then most equity judgments would be separate agreements (since their sets of parties would be independently managed). If it's primarily characterized by the purported act of agreement which caused it to become binding, then equity judgments are the same agreement because they are necessarily agreed to be agreeing to a contract governed by the rules. [This latter interpretation has serious issues with explicitness, though.] The fix for this? I liked the amendment form of equity, but that proposal seemed unpopular for bookkeeping purposes. An explicit-consent exception for agreements reasonably anticipated from prior agreements or similar might make sense. Maybe? [*] Lower-power rules notion of agreement is largely infl
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Repeal Rule 101!
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: > Proposal: Repeal Rule 101! > Adoption index: 3. Word of advice: If you want this to work, make this power 3.1, enact a Rule (power 3.1) that says "Rule 101 CAN be repealed by a Proposal of power 3.1". *Then* repeal Rule 101, then repeal the power 3.1 Rule (all in the same proposal). Otherwise it's trivial to claim that repealing Rule 101 removes rights, and R101 has precedence over the current rules governing rules repeal. -Goethe
