On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 2:46 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2019-06-23 at 15:26 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > Can an AI 3.0 proposal create a power 3.1 Rule?
>
> Yes. However, players sometimes consider voting against proposals with
> AI less than the maximium Power they modify on p
On Sun, 2019-06-23 at 15:26 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Can an AI 3.0 proposal create a power 3.1 Rule?
Yes. However, players sometimes consider voting against proposals with
AI less than the maximium Power they modify on principle, so setting
the AI equal to the highest Power among modified instru
True, but other rules state that proposals can generally change rules and
the gamestate in general. This rule only imposes an additional limitation.
If we repealed this rule, any proposal at any power would be able to change
any rule at any power, meaning that power would no longer control
mutabili
Does that Rule necessarily imply that an Instrument with power equal to
or above 3.0 CAN cause those changes? If no entity could perform those
changes, that Rule would still be accurate.
Jason Cobb
On 6/23/19 3:30 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Yes. AI 3.0 proposals are functionally omnipotent. The
Yes. AI 3.0 proposals are functionally omnipotent. The reason lies in
Rule 2140, "Power Controls Mutability", which says:
"No entity with power below the power of this rule can
1. cause an entity to have power greater than its own.
2. adjust the power of an instrument with power gre
Thanks for the comments! Responses inline.
> > On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event
> Consistent capitalization please :)
Fixed, by switching to caps everywhere.
>
> > and cannot be retroactively modified
>
> CANNOT? I know you later state that changing it is IMPOSSIB
Thank you for all the comments! My responses are inline.
> Overall: Seems quite well designed. Personally I'd prefer to just ban
> retroactive modifications, but this proposal would do a good job of
> codifying the existing precedent.
Thank you! Banning retroactivity might be more elegant, in a
CFJs are technically nonbinding, platonically, so a SHOULD is fine.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> A few small nitpicks:
>
> > On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event
> Consistent capitalization please :)
>
>
> > and cannot be retroactively modified
A few small nitpicks:
On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event
Consistent capitalization please :)
and cannot be retroactively modified
CANNOT? I know you later state that changing it is IMPOSSIBLE w/o time
travel, so this might not be strictly necessary
"The
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 8:24 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
> This proposal codifies a few common sense rules about timelines. For
> instance, retroactive modifications are possible, but work by creating
> a legal fiction, rather than by changing what actually happened.
Overall: Seems quite well designe
This proposal codifies a few common sense rules about timelines. For
instance, retroactive modifications are possible, but work by creating
a legal fiction, rather than by changing what actually happened. It
also establishes one major new rule: the standard sequence of events
is secured at power 3.
11 matches
Mail list logo
