Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Linguistically, I just don't see a dividing lines between a "claim > of precedence" and a "specification of a means of determining > precedence". Both can be broad or narrow, both say "x has > precedence over y under circumstances z", I don't see that any > particular grammar or phraseology differentiates them. Another way to put it: All individual claims of precedence, and all individual "specifications of means determining precedence" can be written as follows: IF (A in Class X AND B in Class Y) THEN A > B IF (A in Class P AND B in Class Q) THEN B > A Since all of these can be written like this without loss of meaning, "claims" and "specifications of means" are essentially the same thing (I checked that all the clauses in question could be written this way and no one would argue I think that the grammatical perturbations change the meanings). The problem is, if you have multiple statements like this, you have to have an ordering or sequence or nesting for the IF statements: IF (A in X, B in Y) A > B ELSEIF (A in P, B in Q) B > A etc. There's nothing to say at all, for example, that "If Rule about Rest" comes before "If unequal power" or vice versa. Except (here's the UNDECIDED part) the ordering is actually contained on the right-hand sides of the conditionals. It would be like saying IF (A in X, B in Y) then this precedence clause comes first and A>B If (A in P, B in Q) then *this* precedence clause comes first, and B>A The only way to resolve this is a meta-sequence (e.g. which order in the sequential code). Within 1030, for example, we could "naturally" order the various clauses in the order they appear in the rule when you read it as English texts are read, and this would be a reasonable meta-sequence (this would resolve the contradictions within R1030 that Wooble points out without actually solving the issues with R1482). But between rules? They could be sorted by anything (logical, numerical, power, power then numerical, subject then power then numerical), with the only clues to sorting being on the right side of the THEN clauses and thus contradictory. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > Anyway, I think it might be possible that there's no fatal paradox here, > due to a fortunate accident of wording. Is "taking precedence" the same > as "stipulating another means of determining precedence"? Arguably, > taking precedence is the way in which a rule alters the precedence > rules. I don't think this gets around the fact that either could be written as if/then clauses without any change of meaning. The only difference is that the phrase "this rule claims..." is slightly more self- referential in stipulating a means of determining precedence. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > H. Rulekeepor comex, could you please publish to a-d, or link to a > website containing, the ruleset as of the adoption of R1482/2? If we're > going to have a Massive Gamestate Recalculation, we may as well have a > good starting point. (The links on your website appear to go to the > current ruleset, not historical rulesets.) Yup, looks like the links are broken; remind me to figure out what's wrong. In that meantime, here's the correct version, as of the adoption of P4942, which added that paragraph: http://agora.qoid.us/oldflr/1.271
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 12:50 -0400, comex wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > H. Rulekeepor comex, could you please publish to a-d, or link to a > > website containing, the ruleset as of the adoption of R1482/2? If we're > > going to have a Massive Gamestate Recalculation, we may as well have a > > good starting point. (The links on your website appear to go to the > > current ruleset, not historical rulesets.) > > Yup, looks like the links are broken; remind me to figure out what's > wrong. In that meantime, here's the correct version, as of the > adoption of P4942, which added that paragraph: > http://agora.qoid.us/oldflr/1.271 Hmm... near the top of that ruleset is Rule 2140, with its present wording. I wonder if R2140 implies that low-powered rules can't affect the precedence claim of the high-powered R1482, because that would modify a substantive aspect of it? (Likewise, I suspect R1482 wouldn't affect the Town Fountain in any way, maybe we could use it as a get-out here in an emergency?) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > (Likewise, I suspect R1482 wouldn't > affect the Town Fountain in any way, maybe we could use it as a get-out > here in an emergency?) Pulling on the third stone in the third row under the nozzle (counting clockwise) should reveal a small opening with a stairway leading down.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I see what you're saying, and that this is generally what R1482 > intends, but I have a hard time saying that a claim "This rule takes > precedence over matters of X" is not a direct specification of > a means of determining precedence. It literally and directly is. > It specifies the means "if the matter is X, defer to this rule". How about this: R2229 claims to take precedence over any other rule when determining whether it's possible to spend a Note. The only other rule that mentions the possibility of spending Notes is R2126, which is also Power 2. Therefore, the rule change that enacted R2229's current text did not stipulate a means of determining precedence between rules of unequal power, but rather a specific means of determining precedence between 2 actual rules in the ruleset. A future proposal that purported to, say, increase the Power of R2126, would be blocked by R1482. Note: if this problem really exists in Agora, it exists in Suber's initial ruleset too.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I see what you're saying, and that this is generally what R1482 >> intends, but I have a hard time saying that a claim "This rule takes >> precedence over matters of X" is not a direct specification of >> a means of determining precedence. It literally and directly is. >> It specifies the means "if the matter is X, defer to this rule". > > How about this: > > R2229 claims to take precedence over any other rule when determining > whether it's possible to spend a Note. The only other rule that > mentions the possibility of spending Notes is R2126, which is also > Power 2. Therefore, the rule change that enacted R2229's current text > did not stipulate a means of determining precedence between rules of > unequal power, but rather a specific means of determining precedence > between 2 actual rules in the ruleset. > > A future proposal that purported to, say, increase the Power of R2126, > would be blocked by R1482. That works in the specific case perhaps. I chose the example as the first version of "takes precedence over all rules about X" that I came across. If it passes for notes, though, we'd still have to check every instance of this language in case a power-2 rule on Widgets claimed precedence over a power-3 rule on Widgets since the adoption of R1482/2 to see if those blockages occurred in the past without us knowing. I think that's the essence of the "big gamestate recalculation" we were talking about, especially since Ratification might be caught up in the uncertainty. > Note: if this problem really exists in Agora, it exists in Suber's > initial ruleset too. Indeed it does. There's a thesis on it by Andre: http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/ProblematicPrecedenceThesis The issue doesn't manifest itself in a Nomic until a rule is passed that states "this rule claims precedence over..." so the solution for Suber would be "don't pass a rule that says that." The problem is, we may have passed such rules without realizing it in this case, thinking the precedence claim lannguage was more limited in scope than it actually is. If we passed such a Rule without R1482/2 existing, then we'd have a few places where precedence was fought over, and it might lead to a few scams that were undecidable but could be resolved with a single proposal including the fix. However, R1482/2 has actually hurt us here, as it means some of the Rule Changes that were purported to take place may have actually been blocked. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > The issue doesn't manifest itself in a Nomic until a rule is passed > that states "this rule claims precedence over..." so the solution for > Suber would be "don't pass a rule that says that." Such a rule already exists in the Suber ruleset; R213 claims precedence over all other rules in determining a winner. I think Suber's response would be that this isn't paradoxical because no Immutable rule mentions how to determine if there's a winner and thus it doesn't conflict with the rule about how to resolve conflicts between mutable and immutable rules.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> Note: if this problem really exists in Agora, it exists in Suber's
> initial ruleset too.
To elucidate the situation: in Suber's ruleset, as well as in Agora,
there is a situation where, if irrelevant changes were inactive, the
precedence rules could be paradoxical ("a case of problematic
precedence"). In Suber's ruleset, this would occur if Rule 110 were
amended to determine the winner:
110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the
immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely
void.
213. ... This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining
the winner.
If, instead, a new immutable rule R999 were created to determine the
winner, R110 and R213 would conflict as to whether or not R999 takes
precedence over R213; R110 defines a mechanism for resolving that
conflict (R213 doesn't) so R213 becomes entirely void. But if R110
were amended to determine the winner, R110 and R213 would claim
precedence over each other with no nonparadoxical resolution. This is
the problem illustrated in the thesis:
http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/ProblematicPrecedenceThesis
which proposed a clause similar to the one in Rule 1482 that is
currently causing some trouble. Suber's ruleset did NOT contain such
a clause so Wooble is incorrect: the worst outcome in that ruleset is
a paradox about the winner, not proposals silently failing to take
effect. But this is Agora, and we have:
No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule
to stipulate any other means of determining precedence
between Rules of unequal Power. This applies to changes by
the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.
This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit
such a change to the Ruleset.
I don't know if any rules currently claim to take precedence over
higher-powered ones, but here is a particularly interesting example:
Rule /0 (Power=2)
Maximum Voting Limits
Other rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no entity may have
greater a voting limit than as allowed by this rule.
The maximum voting limit for any entity on an ordinary decision
is 8. The maximum voting limit for any entity on any other
decision is 1.
The voting limit for entities on democratic decisions is defined by
Power=3 Rule 1950, and this rule claims and fails to take precedence
over it. However, it is not "active", so to speak, because Rule 1950
defines such voting limits as one. The more frequent case is similar
to this:
Rule 2229/1 (Power=2)
Just Resting
Owning one or more Rests is a Losing Condition.
While a person owns at least 8 Rests, that person CANNOT spend
Notes except to destroy Rests e owns. This takes precedence
over any other rule.
In this case, the rule also clearly claims to take precedence over
Power=3 rules, but the rule under no circumstances in the current
ruleset would attempt to override a higher-Powered rule-- no
higher-Powered rule specifies anything about Notes. But the paradox
the problematic clause is meant to prevent would occur if Rule 1482
were amended to define a method for Note spending.
The question, therefore, is whether a claim of precedence like the
above, which does stipulate a means of determining precedence between
Rules of unequal Power; which stipulation is currently (and at the
time of the rule's enactment) entirely ineffective and useless; but
which stipulation could, through the irrelevant amendment of other
rules, come to cause a paradox, is prevented from enactment by Rule
1482.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: > That works in the specific case perhaps. I chose the example as the > first version of "takes precedence over all rules about X" that I came > across. If it passes for notes, though, we'd still have to check every > instance of this language in case a power-2 rule on Widgets claimed > precedence over a power-3 rule on Widgets since the adoption of R1482/2 > to see if those blockages occurred in the past without us knowing. I > think that's the essence of the "big gamestate recalculation" we were > talking about, especially since Ratification might be caught up in the > uncertainty. Another problem. The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of precedence between rules of unequal power are blocked. So if a higher-powered rule specifies a means of determining precedence over a lower-powered one, that's an "other means" even if the net effect of which rule beats which other rule is the same. Rule 105 claims precedence over all rules, including unequal ones, for rule change procedures. That means, even if no lower-powered rules currently specify a different means, a power-1 rule that states "a player can make arbitrary rule changes by announcement" would cause the ruleset to specify a means other than power for precedence to be determined. (Test: if R1482 didn't exist, R105 would beat the power-1 rule by its own statement of how to resolve the conflict, so it specifies a different means). So the power-1 rule enactment would be blocked. Massive win-recalculation anyone? Of course, R105 takes precedence over R1482. Maybe we shouldn't promote R1482 after all. -Goethe ps. All of this is naturally arguable.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Another problem. The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes > that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of > precedence between rules of unequal power are blocked. It may be relevant that it says "stipulate" rather than "specify". As a term used primarily in a legal context, it has its meaning in that context, "to accept (a proposition) without requiring that it be established by proof". No rule accepts a different means of determining precedence without proof, so the gamestate is fine. QED.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> The issue doesn't manifest itself in a Nomic until a rule is passed >> that states "this rule claims precedence over..." so the solution for >> Suber would be "don't pass a rule that says that." > > Such a rule already exists in the Suber ruleset; R213 claims > precedence over all other rules in determining a winner. I think > Suber's response would be that this isn't paradoxical because no > Immutable rule mentions how to determine if there's a winner and thus > it doesn't conflict with the rule about how to resolve conflicts > between mutable and immutable rules. You are correct. For the paradox to exist, you need all of the following: 1. If (Rule A is in X, and B is in Y) then A > B 2. If (Rule A is in P, and B is in Q) then B < A 3. Rules have (X or Y) and (P or Q) independently. If then Rule C has (X,P) and Rule D has (Y,Q) and C and D conflict about any matter, then you've got the paradox. Even with these restrictions, I think there's plenty of cases where this can and has happened for us, because "power" is wholly independent from "all rules that deal with (rests, proposals, whatever)". These things wouldn't be independent if "all rules" was replaced with "all equal or lower powered rules" which is how we were interpreting it and what my fix proposal does, but right now that's not the definition of "all", so (the basic thesis) is that we were interpreting it wrong. "All" is a rather complete domain and it takes a lot of handwaving or very specific language to say "all" really means "all except for higher powered ones". Again, the R1482/2 blockage makes it worse. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Another problem. The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes >> that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of >> precedence between rules of unequal power are blocked. > > It may be relevant that it says "stipulate" rather than "specify". As > a term used primarily in a legal context, it has its meaning in that > context, "to accept (a proposition) without requiring that it be > established by proof". No rule accepts a different means of > determining precedence without proof, so the gamestate is fine. QED. But rules do so stipulate. A sentence that says "This rule has precedence over rules about rests" is stating a proposition (axiom if you will) for which no further proof is required. If R1482 didn't exist, that sentence would independently and would still describe a means of precedence that is complete without proof. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> Another problem. �The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes >>> that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of >>> precedence between rules of unequal power are blocked. >> >> It may be relevant that it says "stipulate" rather than "specify". As >> a term used primarily in a legal context, it has its meaning in that >> context, "to accept (a proposition) without requiring that it be >> established by proof". No rule accepts a different means of >> determining precedence without proof, so the gamestate is fine. QED. > > But rules do so stipulate. A sentence that says "This rule has precedence > over rules about rests" is stating a proposition (axiom if you will) > for which no further proof is required. If R1482 didn't exist, that > sentence would independently and would still describe a means of > precedence that is complete without proof. -Goethe It can be plausibly read either way; the rules are silent on which interpretation is correct; the good of the game clearly demands we choose the one that doesn't require massive gamestate recalculation. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 15:04 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> Another problem. �The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes > >>> that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of > >>> precedence between rules of unequal power are blocked. > >> > >> It may be relevant that it says "stipulate" rather than "specify". As > >> a term used primarily in a legal context, it has its meaning in that > >> context, "to accept (a proposition) without requiring that it be > >> established by proof". No rule accepts a different means of > >> determining precedence without proof, so the gamestate is fine. QED. > > > > But rules do so stipulate. A sentence that says "This rule has precedence > > over rules about rests" is stating a proposition (axiom if you will) > > for which no further proof is required. If R1482 didn't exist, that > > sentence would independently and would still describe a means of > > precedence that is complete without proof. -Goethe > > It can be plausibly read either way; the rules are silent on which > interpretation is correct; the good of the game clearly demands we > choose the one that doesn't require massive gamestate recalculation. > Unfortunately, rule 1482 takes precedence over rule 217 as well, probably. (Rule 217 is older; I'm not sure if that matters, though.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Another problem. �The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of precedence between rules of unequal power are blocked. >>> >>> It may be relevant that it says "stipulate" rather than "specify". As >>> a term used primarily in a legal context, it has its meaning in that >>> context, "to accept (a proposition) without requiring that it be >>> established by proof". No rule accepts a different means of >>> determining precedence without proof, so the gamestate is fine. QED. >> >> But rules do so stipulate. A sentence that says "This rule has precedence >> over rules about rests" is stating a proposition (axiom if you will) >> for which no further proof is required. If R1482 didn't exist, that >> sentence would independently and would still describe a means of >> precedence that is complete without proof. -Goethe > > It can be plausibly read either way; the rules are silent on which > interpretation is correct; the good of the game clearly demands we > choose the one that doesn't require massive gamestate recalculation. What do you mean by "either way"? In what way does "This rule has precedence over rules about rests" *not* state a means of determining precedence that is complete without further proof? (e.g. "stipulate"). Maybe I'm not understanding something. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 7 May 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >> Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Another problem. �The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes > that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of > precedence between rules of unequal power are blocked. It may be relevant that it says "stipulate" rather than "specify". As a term used primarily in a legal context, it has its meaning in that context, "to accept (a proposition) without requiring that it be established by proof". No rule accepts a different means of determining precedence without proof, so the gamestate is fine. QED. >>> >>> But rules do so stipulate. A sentence that says "This rule has precedence >>> over rules about rests" is stating a proposition (axiom if you will) >>> for which no further proof is required. If R1482 didn't exist, that >>> sentence would independently and would still describe a means of >>> precedence that is complete without proof. -Goethe >> >> It can be plausibly read either way; the rules are silent on which >> interpretation is correct; the good of the game clearly demands we >> choose the one that doesn't require massive gamestate recalculation. > > What do you mean by "either way"? In what way does "This rule has > precedence over rules about rests" *not* state a means of determining > precedence that is complete without further proof? (e.g. > "stipulate"). Maybe I'm not understanding something. -Goethe There are two competing senses of "stipulate" to choose from: Wooble's, by which no rule currently "stipulates" anything, and the crisis-causing one, by which lots of proposals probably had no effect and the gamestate requires massive recalculation. I submit that R217's "good of the game" favors the former. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > There are two competing senses of "stipulate" to choose from: Wooble's, > by which no rule currently "stipulates" anything, and the crisis-causing > one, by which lots of proposals probably had no effect and the gamestate > requires massive recalculation. I submit that R217's "good of the game" > favors the former. Ah, Wooble is arguing that "stipulate" is meaningless for any rule, or at least that's how your interpreting eir arguments. Well, to use a "good of the game" argument, your argument must at least be reasonable rather than "let's bend every definition in the hope that it saves us." I don't find that too persuasive in that (quick look at the dictionary) "stipulate" has specific reference in legal terminology to basic assertions that are specifically made in contracts, and even if we're not using equity, our ruleset is still in a lot of ways very much like a contract, with many basic sets of assumptions "stipulated" without further proof. Eg if the rules say "a person CAN do X by announcement" that's a basic stipulation that we accept unless other stipulations conflict with it. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > There are two competing senses of "stipulate" to choose from: Wooble's, > by which no rule currently "stipulates" anything, and the crisis-causing > one, by which lots of proposals probably had no effect and the gamestate > requires massive recalculation. I submit that R217's "good of the game" > favors the former. Under this interpretation, the game has been broken since April 2007: Rule 1688/4 (Power=3) Power The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number. An instrument is an entity with positive power. The power of an entity cannot be set or modified except as stipulated by the rules. Y'know, just saying.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 16:48 -0400, comex wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Benjamin Caplan > wrote: > > There are two competing senses of "stipulate" to choose from: Wooble's, > > by which no rule currently "stipulates" anything, and the crisis-causing > > one, by which lots of proposals probably had no effect and the gamestate > > requires massive recalculation. I submit that R217's "good of the game" > > favors the former. > > Under this interpretation, the game has been broken since April 2007: > > Rule 1688/4 (Power=3) > Power > > The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number. > An instrument is an entity with positive power. > > The power of an entity cannot be set or modified except as > stipulated by the rules. > > Y'know, just saying. Aaargh. Let's just amend the rules so ratification definitely works, then ratify everything we can. (Does everyone agree that the mechanism for adopting democratic proposals is definitely what we think it is?) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 15:04 -0500, Benjamin Caplan wrote: >> Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > On Thu, 7 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin >> >> wrote: >> >>> Another problem. �The exact wording of 1482/2 says that rule changes >> >>> that cause the ruleset as a whole to specify *any other means* of >> >>> precedence between rules of unequal power are blocked. >> >> >> >> It may be relevant that it says "stipulate" rather than "specify". As >> >> a term used primarily in a legal context, it has its meaning in that >> >> context, "to accept (a proposition) without requiring that it be >> >> established by proof". No rule accepts a different means of >> >> determining precedence without proof, so the gamestate is fine. QED. >> > >> > But rules do so stipulate. A sentence that says "This rule has precedence >> > over rules about rests" is stating a proposition (axiom if you will) >> > for which no further proof is required. If R1482 didn't exist, that >> > sentence would independently and would still describe a means of >> > precedence that is complete without proof. -Goethe >> >> It can be plausibly read either way; the rules are silent on which >> interpretation is correct; the good of the game clearly demands we >> choose the one that doesn't require massive gamestate recalculation. >> > Unfortunately, rule 1482 takes precedence over rule 217 as well, > probably. (Rule 217 is older; I'm not sure if that matters, though.) 1. R217 isn't specifying a means of determining precedence that would conflict with R1482's; it's interpreting the meaning of the wording of R1482 itself. 2. It does (or at least can) matter that R217 is older. R1482 only forbids changes to the ruleset that would cause new precedence-rules to come into existence. It says nothing about pre-existing ones. Thus, for two different reasons, R217 should be immune to the troublesome paragraph of R1482. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > Aaargh. Let's just amend the rules so ratification definitely works, > then ratify everything we can. (Does everyone agree that the mechanism > for adopting democratic proposals is definitely what we think it is?) There is one good of the game argument I can kind of see just now but I'm not wholly persuaded. It could be argued that: No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to stipulate any other means of determining precedence between Rules of unequal Power. means "between any two arbitrary Rules of unequal power". In other words, a "means" of determining power is only a means if it contains instructions for every arbitrary pair of rules of unequal power, not just for ones about Rests. Of course, that means R1482 is broken in another way, as that it would make it possible to pass a power-1 rule that says "lower-powered rules have precedence over higher-powered rules except for rules about kumquats" (in other words, you could come arbitrarily close to being about any two arbitrary rules without actually being so). Still, that's a way in which R1482 is broken in the future, not in the past. However, I'm not at all convinced that you can willy-nilly insert "any two arbitrary" in the phrase "between Rules". You could just as easily insert "any two specific rules (arbitrary or not)" which is more reasonable to the way it's intended to be used - e.g. it's intended to stop a power-2 specific rule from claiming precedence over a power-3 specific rule. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 7 May 2009, Alex Smith wrote: >> Aaargh. Let's just amend the rules so ratification definitely works, >> then ratify everything we can. (Does everyone agree that the mechanism >> for adopting democratic proposals is definitely what we think it is?) > > There is one good of the game argument I can kind of see just now but > I'm not wholly persuaded. It could be argued that: > No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule > to stipulate any other means of determining precedence > between Rules of unequal Power. > means "between any two arbitrary Rules of unequal power". In other > words, a "means" of determining power is only a means if it contains > instructions for every arbitrary pair of rules of unequal power, > not just for ones about Rests. > > Of course, that means R1482 is broken in another way, as that it > would make it possible to pass a power-1 rule that says "lower-powered > rules have precedence over higher-powered rules except for rules > about kumquats" (in other words, you could come arbitrarily close > to being about any two arbitrary rules without actually being so). > Still, that's a way in which R1482 is broken in the future, not > in the past. > > However, I'm not at all convinced that you can willy-nilly insert > "any two arbitrary" in the phrase "between Rules". You could just > as easily insert "any two specific rules (arbitrary or not)" which > is more reasonable to the way it's intended to be used - e.g. > it's intended to stop a power-2 specific rule from claiming > precedence over a power-3 specific rule. I think the least breaky interpretation is that all those proposals did in fact go through, but that R1482 selectively limits the meanings that the rule texts can take on. That is, when a rule created after the current version of 1482 says "this rule takes precedence over all other rules regarding walruses", we are constrained to interpret that as meaning "this rule takes precedence over all other equal-powered rules regarding walruses". I'm not sure this can be justified in terms of the rules text, but I think that at least in the short run it's the most desirable outcome. Pavitra signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Benjamin Caplan
wrote:
> I think the least breaky interpretation is that all those proposals did
> in fact go through, but that R1482 selectively limits the meanings that
> the rule texts can take on. That is, when a rule created after the
> current version of 1482 says "this rule takes precedence over all other
> rules regarding walruses", we are constrained to interpret that as
> meaning "this rule takes precedence over all other equal-powered rules
> regarding walruses".
>
> I'm not sure this can be justified in terms of the rules text, but I
> think that at least in the short run it's the most desirable outcome.
No, that's specifically the opposite of what the rule is intended to
do-- "A Case of Problematic Precedence" illustrated that a paradox can
exist when low-powered rules say certain things no matter what
high-powered rules say in return, so the rules need to actually
prevent the text from coming into the low-powered rule.
Remember, though, we can submit a proposal that fixes ratification
plus "Ratify the following document: { Proposal 4942 failed to amend
Rule 1482 }". It's ugly, but no matter what rule changes might have
failed in the last two years, the democratic proposal adoption process
is basically the same and it should be possible to adopt such a fix
without ambiguity.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 06:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Both views can't be right. Has the phrase "this matter claims >> precedence over matters of X" been in an UNDECIDABLE conflict with >> R1482 all along? Was Rule 2229's claim of precedence (allegedly >> enacted 2008 or later) allegedly IMPOSSIBLE due to the second >> paragraph of R1482 (adopted 2007)? > > H. Rulekeepor comex, could you please publish to a-d, or link to a > website containing, the ruleset as of the adoption of R1482/2? If we're > going to have a Massive Gamestate Recalculation, we may as well have a > good starting point. (The links on your website appear to go to the > current ruleset, not historical rulesets.) While you work on that, here's a list of reports we'll need ratified to reset the game state: - Rulekeepor - Herald - Ambassador - Registrar (actually, this probably doesn't need ratification, but it's a good idea) - The part of the IADoP's report containing IIs of offices - Grand Poobah - The part of the Conductor's report containing players' Keys The Notary's report isn't necessary as contracts are outside the rules, although it might be safe; the contents of the Accountor's report are easily calculable. All assets are self-ratifying, we don't need to worry about those, unless we find that the self-ratification rules don't work the way we think they do. Grandfather Forgiveness will need to be reimplemented so that some joker doesn't waste our time NoVing people for mistakes they made here. As Promotor, I will refrain from distributing any proposals that aren't critical to repairing the game state until we fix this. H. Assessor, while I will try to distribute them in the correct order for intended effect, I would ask that you ensure you resolve the decisions in the correct order (and refrain from resolving ongoing decisions until this thing is resolved).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Gratuitous reply:
>
> I see what you're saying, and that this is generally what R1482
> intends, but I have a hard time saying that a claim "This rule takes
> precedence over matters of X" is not a direct specification of
> a means of determining precedence. It literally and directly is.
> It specifies the means "if the matter is X, defer to this rule".
>
> Linguistically, I just don't see a dividing lines between a "claim
> of precedence" and a "specification of a means of determining
> precedence". Both can be broad or narrow, both say "x has
> precedence over y under circumstances z", I don't see that any
> particular grammar or phraseology differentiates them.
I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: "A rule is
a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally."
Suppose I were to publish a document like the following:
{{{
Regulations of Agora
Regulation 1: These are the regulations of Agora. A regulation is a
body of text with the capacity to govern the game generally.
Regulation 2: Regulations take precedence over rules. Rules have no
capacity to govern the game.
Regulation 3: root is the Emperor of Agora.
}}}
Would you simply accept that by creating this document I had magically
superseded the rules? After all, the rules are self-empowered, and so
are these fictitious regulations.
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Gratuitous reply: >> >> I see what you're saying, and that this is generally what R1482 >> intends, but I have a hard time saying that a claim "This rule takes >> precedence over matters of X" is not a direct specification of >> a means of determining precedence. It literally and directly is. >> It specifies the means "if the matter is X, defer to this rule". >> >> Linguistically, I just don't see a dividing lines between a "claim >> of precedence" and a "specification of a means of determining >> precedence". Both can be broad or narrow, both say "x has >> precedence over y under circumstances z", I don't see that any >> particular grammar or phraseology differentiates them. > > I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: "A rule is > a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally." > Suppose I were to publish a document like the following: I agree with everything that follows this paragraph, but after reading it several times I can't figure out how it has anything to do with the topic. :/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > While you work on that, here's a list of reports we'll need ratified to > reset the game state: Nope. As I said, while ugly, simply ratifying that the offending proposal never took effect will reset the gamestate just fine and eliminates corner cases.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM, comex wrote: >> I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: "A rule is >> a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally." >> Suppose I were to publish a document like the following: > > I agree with everything that follows this paragraph, but after reading > it several times I can't figure out how it has anything to do with the > topic. :/ I claim that the thing that prevents a new rules-like document from superseding the rules is the same thing that prevents a relatively low-power rule change (i.e. the one that created R2229) from contravening a high-power rule like R1482. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM, comex wrote: >>> I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: "A rule is >>> a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally." >>> Suppose I were to publish a document like the following: >> >> I agree with everything that follows this paragraph, but after reading >> it several times I can't figure out how it has anything to do with the >> topic. :/ > > I claim that the thing that prevents a new rules-like document from > superseding the rules is the same thing that prevents a relatively > low-power rule change (i.e. the one that created R2229) from > contravening a high-power rule like R1482. Or to look at it another way, a low-power rule change that contravenes a high-power rule is, in effect, a change to the high-power rule. If that change wasn't caused by an instrument with sufficient power, it can't happen. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM, comex wrote: >>> I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: "A rule is >>> a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally." >>> Suppose I were to publish a document like the following: >> >> I agree with everything that follows this paragraph, but after reading >> it several times I can't figure out how it has anything to do with the >> topic. :/ > > I claim that the thing that prevents a new rules-like document from > superseding the rules is the same thing that prevents a relatively > low-power rule change (i.e. the one that created R2229) from > contravening a high-power rule like R1482. I used to think about this, especially when I tried to do a problematic precedence scam in Nomic Wars and it was rejected, and never really settled on a conclusion. What are we agreeing to? How is the platonic entity 'Agora' defined? I say it is defined by the initial rules, plus their platonic amendments to themselves and enactments of new things they consider rules. But the rules are odd documents-- they specify ways that they should be interpreted-- their language and the conflicts between them. Before reading the rules, what guide do we use to interpret them? One option is to pick a set of interpretation rules satisfying the property that, if we interpret the rules with them, we are instructed to use the same set of interpretation rules we are already using. There must, however, be multiple such sets. We could for example use the rule: "interpret these Rules in a language exactly like English, but with the caveat that all claims about interpretation really mean these instructions". This is completely self-consistent. Usually, however, there is exactly one "reasonable" interpretation that does not require such stretching. The rule "interpret these Rules in English" has exactly one reasonable interpretation. But in a case of problematic precedence, there are zero reasonable self-consistent interpretations-- a paradox. Another option is that, in order to interpret the Rules at any particular instant, we should use the guidelines specified in the /last/ instant. Thus at the moment a problematic low-power rule is enacted, we use the rules from a moment ago that state high-powered rules take precedence over low-powered rules. Therefore, the high-power precedence rule takes precedence over the problematic one, and therefore high-powered rules take precedence over low-powered rules-- so we're safe for the next instant as well, and the next and the next. This is sure convenient, but what tells us to use such a relatively odd rule? And what happens at the start of the game, when there is no previous instant to fall back on? But a failed claim by a low-powered rule is still a claim that R1482 would block.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
comex wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: >> While you work on that, here's a list of reports we'll need ratified to >> reset the game state: > > Nope. As I said, while ugly, simply ratifying that the offending > proposal never took effect will reset the gamestate just fine and > eliminates corner cases. Yeah, I wrote that and the distribution while offline, and my client decided to send them as soon as I connected and before I could read the discussion up to now. Sorry about that; I would have sent neither had I been up to date.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:23 PM, comex wrote: > Another option is that, in order to interpret the Rules at any > particular instant, we should use the guidelines specified in the > /last/ instant. Thus at the moment a problematic low-power rule is > enacted, we use the rules from a moment ago that state high-powered > rules take precedence over low-powered rules. Therefore, the > high-power precedence rule takes precedence over the problematic one, > and therefore high-powered rules take precedence over low-powered > rules-- so we're safe for the next instant as well, and the next and > the next. > > This is sure convenient, but what tells us to use such a relatively > odd rule? And what happens at the start of the game, when there is no > previous instant to fall back on? Nomic is supposed to be a legal simulation, so try another analogy. Suppose the U.S. Congress enacted a bill stating that bills enacted by Congress take precedence over the Constitution. What do you think would happen? My opinion is that the bill would be struck down as unconstitutional, and unless Congress had an army to enforce their coup, everyone would just get on with their lives -- possibly with an unusually low number of incumbents getting re-elected in the next election cycle. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:23 PM, comex wrote: >> Another option is that, in order to interpret the Rules at any >> particular instant, we should use the guidelines specified in the >> /last/ instant. Thus at the moment a problematic low-power rule is >> enacted, we use the rules from a moment ago that state high-powered >> rules take precedence over low-powered rules. Therefore, the >> high-power precedence rule takes precedence over the problematic one, >> and therefore high-powered rules take precedence over low-powered >> rules-- so we're safe for the next instant as well, and the next and >> the next. >> >> This is sure convenient, but what tells us to use such a relatively >> odd rule? And what happens at the start of the game, when there is no >> previous instant to fall back on? > > Nomic is supposed to be a legal simulation, so try another analogy. > Suppose the U.S. Congress enacted a bill stating that bills enacted by > Congress take precedence over the Constitution. What do you think > would happen? Nothing, because the President agrees to preserve, protect and defend-- and sovereignty is traditionally considered to, vested in the people, uphold-- the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution, in turn, grants Congress the authority to make various laws, although this authority is limited and the Supreme Court can strike down laws as unconstitutional. This is very much like the situation with contracts-- contracts have only the authority explicitly vested in them by the rules, and cannot take more whatever they say. However, the Constitution does NOT consider laws enacted by Congress to be "low-powered clauses" or something of that sort which is where the ambiguity comes in.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
comex wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Benjamin Caplan
> wrote:
>> I think the least breaky interpretation is that all those proposals did
>> in fact go through, but that R1482 selectively limits the meanings that
>> the rule texts can take on. That is, when a rule created after the
>> current version of 1482 says "this rule takes precedence over all other
>> rules regarding walruses", we are constrained to interpret that as
>> meaning "this rule takes precedence over all other equal-powered rules
>> regarding walruses".
>>
>> I'm not sure this can be justified in terms of the rules text, but I
>> think that at least in the short run it's the most desirable outcome.
>
> No, that's specifically the opposite of what the rule is intended to
> do-- "A Case of Problematic Precedence" illustrated that a paradox can
> exist when low-powered rules say certain things no matter what
> high-powered rules say in return, so the rules need to actually
> prevent the text from coming into the low-powered rule.
>
> Remember, though, we can submit a proposal that fixes ratification
> plus "Ratify the following document: { Proposal 4942 failed to amend
> Rule 1482 }". It's ugly, but no matter what rule changes might have
> failed in the last two years, the democratic proposal adoption process
> is basically the same and it should be possible to adopt such a fix
> without ambiguity.
Actually, the idea was that R1484par2 allowed the text to come into the
low-powered rule, but prevented the meaning from coming into the
low-powered text, so to speak. Upon further reflection, however, I
believe that this would be an incredibly dangerous precedent, and we
would actually be better off sorting through the whole mess manually.
(Though I don't think we'll need to.)
Did the ratification rules exist before R1482par2, and have they been
(purportedly) amended since then? That part at least may need manual
recalculation.
Pavitra
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: >> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM, comex wrote: I don't buy that. The rules are self-empowered, per R2141: "A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally." Suppose I were to publish a document like the following: >>> >>> I agree with everything that follows this paragraph, but after reading >>> it several times I can't figure out how it has anything to do with the >>> topic. :/ >> >> I claim that the thing that prevents a new rules-like document from >> superseding the rules is the same thing that prevents a relatively >> low-power rule change (i.e. the one that created R2229) from >> contravening a high-power rule like R1482. > > Or to look at it another way, a low-power rule change that contravenes > a high-power rule is, in effect, a change to the high-power rule. If > that change wasn't caused by an instrument with sufficient power, it > can't happen. That's the issue I think. I agree that all those changes couldn't happen. The problem is we thought they did happen for a long time. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 7 May 2009, Ian Kelly wrote: > Nomic is supposed to be a legal simulation, so try another analogy. > Suppose the U.S. Congress enacted a bill stating that bills enacted by > Congress take precedence over the Constitution. What do you think > would happen? > > My opinion is that the bill would be struck down as unconstitutional, > and unless Congress had an army to enforce their coup, everyone would > just get on with their lives -- You know, I'm pretty convinced that without R1482p2, if a reversing- power rule was ever enacted, then a judge would say "there is circular precedence so it is undecidable, but it is for the good of the game to choose the [oldest/youngest/lowest numbered] rule." E might even justify by saying "both have effectively the same power using the common definition of 'power', because they claim precedence over each other, therefore R1030 (numerical precedence) governs." Then everyone would get on with their lives. The problem is that r1482p2 actually platonically blocks rules from taking effect before a judge can step in to such a situation, meaning we need to do all the ratification/reconstruction before doing so. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deeper precedence problem
On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 18:42 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > Nomic is supposed to be a legal simulation, so try another analogy. > Suppose the U.S. Congress enacted a bill stating that bills enacted by > Congress take precedence over the Constitution. What do you think > would happen? As usual in such matters, the interpretation that ends up getting enforced is the one that the military and police subscribe to, or possibly the entire populace if there's enough of a disagreement. (If they continued to honour the decisions of the courts, then in effect the courts would continue to be the ones who interpreted the law.) -- ais523
