Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: R2125 uses the phrase as allowed by the rules. Where permitted by other rules might be slightly different when multiple rules are in conflict (not sure), but I doubt it differs in the level of required explicitness. So any permission that satisfies your antecedent already satisfies R2125. R2125 is also taking about actions. Everywhere else in the rules that the word action is used, it's referring to something done by a person. The rule simply doesn't apply to a change made to the gamestate by a proposal. The proposal isn't performing a game action by changing the gamestate, regulated or otherwise.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
On Sun, 2011-01-16 at 23:56 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote: It's worth noting that the current wording was specifically written to avoid the issue of Rule 106 accidentally authorizing the proposal to perform higher-power changes. It wasn't accidental at all. Rule 106 used to authorize proposals to do anything, and I made it that way quite deliberately. (Unfortunately, I had to own up before I could actually use it in a scam, because it became relevant in a CFJ; it was then changed to the current wording in order to try to fix the problem.) What I'd assume should allow the proposals to make the changes in question is its positive Power, which should generally be enough to do anything unsecured. (This is in a the rules should be changed to say this sense, not a the rules do say this sense.) -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
omd wrote: On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:    Where permitted    by other rules, a proposal that takes effect generally can, as    part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies. This is a no-op (except possibly in the case of a power conflict), because it only copies existing authorization-- which only makes sense in R105 because that rule provides the only mechanism by which rule changes can happen. Remove the where permitted bit and it works, scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization, in particular that it takes effect / it applies those changes doesn't count as authorization. I don't strongly agree, but the proto ought to eliminate the question (or at least reduce it to the issue of the rules bootstrapping their own authority, which ultimately depends on metagame agreement that we don't care if e.g. the constitution of Nukehavistan claims retroactive precedence over the rules). but I think it's unnecessarily specific-- how about this, in R1688? A rule that defines certain actions as part of an instrument's effect also allows those actions to take place, except when explicitly prohibited by rules of equal or greater power. Make it equal or greater power than the instrument and I think it would work.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
Sent from my iPhone On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not permitted by other rules. Actually, let's just leave the rules alone. On further thought, the permission required to perform regulated actions is no greater than to change the rules, so either all proposals have been ineffective since who knows when because somehow a rule can purport to cause something to happen without authorizing it, or the rules are fine as they are. (Considering the number of separate ways the New Pedanticism has found the rules to have been broken for years, I don't know why we don't declare this nomic dead and move to B, whose ruleset has at least historically supported massive gamestate recalculation.)
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
omd wrote: On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not permitted by other rules. Permission can be implicit, in the sense of not prohibited; R101(i) explicitly mentions implicit permission, and a couple other rules say explicitly permitted or specifically permitted. Actually, let's just leave the rules alone. On further thought, the permission required to perform regulated actions is no greater than to change the rules, so either all proposals have been ineffective since who knows when because somehow a rule can purport to cause something to happen without authorizing it, or the rules are fine as they are. Rule 105 explicitly states that instruments taking effect can generally make rule changes. Rule 106 is less explicit. (Considering the number of separate ways the New Pedanticism has found the rules to have been broken for years, I don't know why we don't declare this nomic dead and move to B, whose ruleset has at least historically supported massive gamestate recalculation.) Because we don't believe them.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: scshunt is arguing that there is no existing authorization in which case your proposed text would not authorize it, since it's not permitted by other rules. Permission can be implicit, in the sense of not prohibited; R101(i) explicitly mentions implicit permission, and a couple other rules say explicitly permitted or specifically permitted. R2125 uses the phrase as allowed by the rules. Where permitted by other rules might be slightly different when multiple rules are in conflict (not sure), but I doubt it differs in the level of required explicitness. So any permission that satisfies your antecedent already satisfies R2125.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
omd wrote: On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On 11-01-16 05:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: Proposal 6947 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by Wooble New Forum Flip the Publicity of the mailing list with the address agora-pub...@googlegroups.com (on the web at http://groups.google.com/group/agora-public) to Public. This proposal has no effect; nothing grants it the power to do so and flipping Publicity is a regulated action. CFJ: agora-pub...@googlegroups.com is a Public Forum. Arguments: above. Gratuitous: Rule 106 does.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
On 11-01-16 08:31 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: omd wrote: On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 7:08 PM, Sean Huntscsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On 11-01-16 05:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: Proposal 6947 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by Wooble New Forum Flip the Publicity of the mailing list with the address agora-pub...@googlegroups.com (on the web at http://groups.google.com/group/agora-public) to Public. This proposal has no effect; nothing grants it the power to do so and flipping Publicity is a regulated action. CFJ: agora-pub...@googlegroups.com is a Public Forum. Arguments: above. Gratuitous: Rule 106 does. Gratuitous: Rule 106 says that When a proposal that includes such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to the gamestate. If the proposal cannot make some such changes, this does not preclude the other changes from taking place. This does not actually grant it any powers it doesn't already have, it merely instructs the proposal to attempt to perform its text. Sean
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
On 11-01-16 09:21 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: So? Rule 478 doesn't secure the flipping of a forum's publicity, so any rule-approved process (including an adopted proposal taking effect per Rule 106) satisfies R2125(c) and (e). Rule 106 does not allow the proposal to do anything. It merely causes the proposal to act. The proposal is still restricted by what any rules, including R2125, say. This has been a longstanding bug in Agoran rules. I've tried to fix it before. I simply haven't tried to use it before because I haven't cared enough, but I am not interested in subscribing to a Google group to play Agora. Sean
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: Rule 106 does not allow the proposal to do anything. It merely causes the proposal to act. The proposal is still restricted by what any rules, including R2125, say. note that although this publicity flipping somewhat uniquely is regulated by c), just about any proposal that did anything nontrivial besides rule changes would have failed under your interpretation due to e)
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
On 11-01-16 10:09 PM, omd wrote: note that although this publicity flipping somewhat uniquely is regulated by c), just about any proposal that did anything nontrivial besides rule changes would have failed under your interpretation due to e) Yes. -scshunt
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
scshunt wrote: On 11-01-16 10:09 PM, omd wrote: note that although this publicity flipping somewhat uniquely is regulated by c), just about any proposal that did anything nontrivial besides rule changes would have failed under your interpretation due to e) Yes. I think it's reasonable to interpret Rule 106's it applies those changes as implying it may apply those changes, but it should be clarified now that it's been pointed out. (Rule 105 explicitly says that instruments can make rule changes, so no problem there.) Proto-Proposal: Clarify Rule 106 (AI = 3, II = 3, co-author = scshunt) Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing this text: A proposal is a fixed body of text which has been made into a proposal using a process specifically described in the Rules. When creating proposals, the person who creates them SHOULD ensure that the proposal outlines changes to be made to Agora, such as enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. When a proposal that includes such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to the gamestate. If the proposal cannot make some such changes, this does not preclude the other changes from taking place. with this text: A proposal is a fixed body of text which has been made into a proposal using a process specifically described in the Rules. When a person creates a proposal, e SHOULD ensure that it specifies one or more changes to the gamestate. Where permitted by other rules, a proposal that takes effect generally can, as part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies. If the proposal cannot make some such changes, this does not preclude the other changes from taking place.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
scshunt wrote: It's worth noting that the current wording was specifically written to avoid the issue of Rule 106 accidentally authorizing the proposal to perform higher-power changes. I think the proto would preserve that, as it deliberately parallels Rule 105's Where permitted by other rules (which accounts for e.g. insufficient Power per Rule 2140).
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6944 - 6947
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Where permitted by other rules, a proposal that takes effect generally can, as part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies. This is a no-op (except possibly in the case of a power conflict), because it only copies existing authorization-- which only makes sense in R105 because that rule provides the only mechanism by which rule changes can happen. Remove the where permitted bit and it works, but I think it's unnecessarily specific-- how about this, in R1688? A rule that defines certain actions as part of an instrument's effect also allows those actions to take place, except when explicitly prohibited by rules of equal or greater power. (I still think the definition of instruments and taking effect is unnecessarily complex-- see a rant I made once about band-aids.)
