Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Protection of historical artifacts
On Jul 19, 2013, at 1:06 PM, omd wrote: On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: A proposal CANNOT amend Rule 104 First Speaker or Rule 2029 Town Fountain unless that proposal explicitly states, using the rule's title, that it is amending that rule. Probably ineffective due to precedence. Rule 106 states, Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies. So I don't see a precedence issue here. Hm, this seems like it could be scammed. If a rule of power 1.1 were enacted, stating, A proposal with power greater than 1 CANNOT apply any changes, then Rule 106 would follow this instruction, thereby preventing proposals with greater power from taking effect. This accidental deputy problem, where rule A unintentionally carries out the effect specified by rule B, seems to have happened a few times in Agora. Rule 105 seems like it may have the same problem: the power of a new rule is limited by the maximum power permitted by other rules, suggesting that even a low-powered rule can place a cap on the maximum power of a new rule. Rule 1728 says that one of the conditions for a dependent action to be successfully resolved is that Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules. This can only be interpreted as an intentional deputy situation, since Rule 1728 is at power 3, but Rule 2124, which defines Satisfaction, is at power 2. Rule 683 states that other rules can place constraints on the validity of ballots. Again, this seems like intentional deputyship, since Rule 2412 (power 2) places restrictions on the validity of ballots, even though Rule 683 is at power 3. Rule 991 states that a subclass of judicial case has features as defined by other rules. Could a power-1 rule state that a Dictatorship Case is a class of judicial case, and one of its features is that upon being created, its power is immediately set to 2, then it immediately creates a power-2 rule giving Queen Davy a dictatorship? Maybe Rules 991 and 1728 could be exploited to escalate from power 1 to power 3. One of the features of a Confused Deputy Case is that its power is set to 2 and then it enacts a rule stating that if someone intends to ratify the existence of a rule giving Queen Davy a dictatorship, then Agora is Satisfied with that intent. —Machiavelli
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Protection of historical artifacts
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: Rule 106 states, Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies. So I don't see a precedence issue here. Good point, I forgot about that clause. However... Hm, this seems like it could be scammed. If a rule of power 1.1 were enacted, stating, A proposal with power greater than 1 CANNOT apply any changes, then Rule 106 would follow this instruction, thereby preventing proposals with greater power from taking effect. Thus Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. I interpret categorically preventing a proposal from making changes as preventing it from taking effect (however, I think the sneaky tricks my Wisconsin proposal would play would be able to get around this - timing attacks are fun.) Rule 991 states that a subclass of judicial case has features as defined by other rules. Could a power-1 rule state that a Dictatorship Case is a class of judicial case, and one of its features is that upon being created, its power is immediately set to 2, then it immediately creates a power-2 rule giving Queen Davy a dictatorship? I doubt any judge would hold that interpretation up.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Protection of historical artifacts
On Jul 19, 2013, at 4:41 PM, omd wrote: On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: Hm, this seems like it could be scammed. If a rule of power 1.1 were enacted, stating, A proposal with power greater than 1 CANNOT apply any changes, then Rule 106 would follow this instruction, thereby preventing proposals with greater power from taking effect. Thus Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. I interpret categorically preventing a proposal from making changes as preventing it from taking effect (however, I think the sneaky tricks my Wisconsin proposal would play would be able to get around this - timing attacks are fun.) I don't think this interpretation is consistent with the text of Rule 106. The rule states that *when* a proposal takes effect, the changes it specifies are applied; this seems to imply that the event of a proposal taking effect is a distinct event from the event of the changes being applied. —Machiavelli
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Protection
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: Please tell us what you intend to accomplish with this dictatorship and when you intend it to end. Permanent dictatorships are bad form. Actually, come to think of it, it's pretty clear that you intend to implement your gameplay proposal (which I support), and I assume you intend to step down after doing so. So never mind. —Machiavelli
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Protection
On Apr 10, 2013 12:45 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: Please tell us what you intend to accomplish with this dictatorship and when you intend it to end. Permanent dictatorships are bad form. Actually, come to think of it, it's pretty clear that you intend to implement your gameplay proposal (which I support), and I assume you intend to step down after doing so. So never mind. —Machiavelli That was the original intent, however, it is no longer. Now it's just fun; I'll gladly accept the patent title I suggested. -scshunt
