On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 02:37, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 1/7/20 6:10 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories > > are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power" > > (e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over > > "non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy > > category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities > > within their defining category). > > > I started drafting something for this a while back, but the wording is > shoddy, incomplete, and too long. Here's the basic idea though: > > 1. Create a new type of Instrument called a "Module" (bikeshedding > welcome). Each Module has a list of dependencies (with underpowered > dependencies prohibited), and some other housekeeping stuff (like a title). > > 2. Give each Rule a switch, called Parent. The power of a rule's parent > must be _less_ than the rule's power. This means that a Rule can have > its effective power decreased to the power of a module, but never increased. > > 3. Create a special module called the Default Module with the lowest > possible power and which depends on all modules. This is the default > Parent for all Rules. The purpose of this is to allow migrating rules > incrementally without breaking anything (at first). > > 4. (Wording very incomplete) Change R1030 and R217 to know about modules. > > > Do you all like this concept, and is this something worth pursuing? If > so, I'll make a revised draft public somewhere (probably on GitHub) and > continue developing it. > > -- > Jason Cobb
[For anyone else trying to catch up --- I think the subject line "ratifying honour, etc" is being used for three different discussions: a few messages about G.'s original practical suggestion that officers use ratification to resolve The Troubles; a lot of messages initiated by Alexis's suggestion about giving offers power to make rulings; and Jason Cobb's single message quoted above. I made a new subject for this one.] Is this intended to be along the same lines as Trigon's "Interesting Chambers" proto from September? (Subject lines: "Proto for a new voting/chamber system" and "Interesting Chambers v2".) Your proposal is interesting. How did you imagine these being used? One thing this makes me think of: it would be interesting if Rules, regulations, provisions in contracts, etc could all be the same kind of entity, with some of them existing / having power only at the pleasure of others. E.g. a provision in a contract only has power insofar as the Rule about contracts says contract rules can have power. Is that what you had in mind here? - Falsifian
