Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidering 4069
Ah. Then yes, I'd definitely refile the case.
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024, 10:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 3/18/24 01:14, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 3/17/24 22:14, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> What evidence do you have that rule numbers and Id numbers are the same?
> >> Because arguing that this case is false has definitive disastrous
> effects,
> >> so is there another way to judge this case outside of those two options?
> >
> > The earliest FLR in the agora-official archives [0] describes "rule
> > numbers" with numbers that match today's ID numbers.
> >
> >
> > The following proposal [1] uses "rule number" in its title and "ID
> > number" in its text:
> >
> >> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
> >>
> >> Proposal 5115 (Democratic, AI=3, Disinterested) by Zefram
> >> restore enforcement of rule number stability
> >>
> >> Amend rule 2141 by replacing the paragraph
> >>
> >> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
> >>
> >> with
> >>
> >> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor. A rule
> >> CANNOT have the same ID number as any other rule. Once
> >> assigned, a rule's ID number cannot be changed.
> >>
> >> [This only applies if P5110 "Regulate ID numbers" generalised the
> >> assignment of ID numbers. The new rule "ID Numbers" says that ID
> >> numbers must be distinct and can't be changed, but that's only at
> >> power=2. For rules, especially with ID numbers being used to
> >> determine precedence, these things should be enforced at power=3. The
> >> detailed procedure for ID number selection and assignment remains
> >> separate in the "ID Numbers" rule.]
> >>
> >> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
> >
> > CFJ 1876 [2] uses "rule number" while the contemporary ruleset [3] uses
> > "ID number". This is not commented upon. See also CFJ 2513.
> >
> >
> > The following proposal (never distributed?) [4] uses "rule number" to
> > describe what the contemporary ruleset [5] calls "ID numbers" (and even
> > uses it to describe the specific ID numbers in question):
> >
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Title: Sudden Death
> >> Author: G.
> >> AI: 1.0
> >> II: 1
> >> Chamber: Green
> >>
> >> [A bonus temporary win condition that only two people should ever
> >> be able to achieve. Start your engines!]
> >>
> >> Create the following rule, Sudden Death.
> >>
> >> The next player who wins the game by Renaissance simultaneously
> >> wins the game by satisfying the winning condition IN OVERTIME,
> >> provided no other player won the game by Renaissance in the
> >> same instant.
> >>
> >> If a player has won the game by Renaissance since the creation
> >> of this rule, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause
> >> this rule to cause Rule 2199 to repeal itself.
> >>
> >> The next player who wins the game by high score simultaneously
> >> wins the game by satisfying the winning condition IN OVERTIME,
> >> provided no other player won the game by high score in the
> >> same instant.
> >>
> >> If a player has won the game by High Score since the creation
> >> of this rule, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by a single announcement,
> >> cause this rule to cause Rules 2179, 2187, 2232, 2233, and 2234
> >> to repeal themselves in order.
> >>
> >> If none of the rules listed by rule number in the text of this
> >> rule exist, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause
> >> this rule to repeal itself.
> >>
> >> ---
> > The following proposal [6] uses "rule number" in its title and "ID
> > number" in its text:
> >
> >> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
> >>
> >> Proposal 6992 (Democratic, AI=3.0) by Murphy
> >> (coauth: omd)
> >> Fix rule numbers
> >>
> >> Ratify all rule ID numbers in the document purported to be the
> >> Short Logical Ruleset and published on or about Thu, 3 Mar 2011
> >> 14:40:44 -0500.
> >>
> >> Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "modify"
> >> with "set or modify".
> >>
> >> Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) by replacing this
> >> text:
> >>
> >> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor, and are
> >> strictly ordered.
> >>
> >> Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a
> >> rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign
> >> a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.
> >>
> >> For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
> >> the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
> >> substantive aspects of the rule.
> >>
> >> with this text:
> >>
> >> Rules have ID numbers, to
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidering 4069
On 3/18/24 01:14, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 3/17/24 22:14, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
>> What evidence do you have that rule numbers and Id numbers are the same?
>> Because arguing that this case is false has definitive disastrous effects,
>> so is there another way to judge this case outside of those two options?
>
> The earliest FLR in the agora-official archives [0] describes "rule
> numbers" with numbers that match today's ID numbers.
>
>
> The following proposal [1] uses "rule number" in its title and "ID
> number" in its text:
>
>> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>>
>> Proposal 5115 (Democratic, AI=3, Disinterested) by Zefram
>> restore enforcement of rule number stability
>>
>> Amend rule 2141 by replacing the paragraph
>>
>> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
>>
>> with
>>
>> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor. A rule
>> CANNOT have the same ID number as any other rule. Once
>> assigned, a rule's ID number cannot be changed.
>>
>> [This only applies if P5110 "Regulate ID numbers" generalised the
>> assignment of ID numbers. The new rule "ID Numbers" says that ID
>> numbers must be distinct and can't be changed, but that's only at
>> power=2. For rules, especially with ID numbers being used to
>> determine precedence, these things should be enforced at power=3. The
>> detailed procedure for ID number selection and assignment remains
>> separate in the "ID Numbers" rule.]
>>
>> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> CFJ 1876 [2] uses "rule number" while the contemporary ruleset [3] uses
> "ID number". This is not commented upon. See also CFJ 2513.
>
>
> The following proposal (never distributed?) [4] uses "rule number" to
> describe what the contemporary ruleset [5] calls "ID numbers" (and even
> uses it to describe the specific ID numbers in question):
>
>> ---
>>
>> Title: Sudden Death
>> Author: G.
>> AI: 1.0
>> II: 1
>> Chamber: Green
>>
>> [A bonus temporary win condition that only two people should ever
>> be able to achieve. Start your engines!]
>>
>> Create the following rule, Sudden Death.
>>
>> The next player who wins the game by Renaissance simultaneously
>> wins the game by satisfying the winning condition IN OVERTIME,
>> provided no other player won the game by Renaissance in the
>> same instant.
>>
>> If a player has won the game by Renaissance since the creation
>> of this rule, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause
>> this rule to cause Rule 2199 to repeal itself.
>>
>> The next player who wins the game by high score simultaneously
>> wins the game by satisfying the winning condition IN OVERTIME,
>> provided no other player won the game by high score in the
>> same instant.
>>
>> If a player has won the game by High Score since the creation
>> of this rule, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by a single announcement,
>> cause this rule to cause Rules 2179, 2187, 2232, 2233, and 2234
>> to repeal themselves in order.
>>
>> If none of the rules listed by rule number in the text of this
>> rule exist, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause
>> this rule to repeal itself.
>>
>> ---
> The following proposal [6] uses "rule number" in its title and "ID
> number" in its text:
>
>> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>>
>> Proposal 6992 (Democratic, AI=3.0) by Murphy
>> (coauth: omd)
>> Fix rule numbers
>>
>> Ratify all rule ID numbers in the document purported to be the
>> Short Logical Ruleset and published on or about Thu, 3 Mar 2011
>> 14:40:44 -0500.
>>
>> Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "modify"
>> with "set or modify".
>>
>> Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) by replacing this
>> text:
>>
>> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor, and are
>> strictly ordered.
>>
>> Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a
>> rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign
>> a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.
>>
>> For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
>> the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
>> substantive aspects of the rule.
>>
>> with this text:
>>
>> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
>>
>> Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a
>> rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor SHALL assign
>> a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.
>>
>> For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
>> the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
>>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidering 4069
On 3/17/24 22:14, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> What evidence do you have that rule numbers and Id numbers are the same?
> Because arguing that this case is false has definitive disastrous effects,
> so is there another way to judge this case outside of those two options?
The earliest FLR in the agora-official archives [0] describes "rule
numbers" with numbers that match today's ID numbers.
The following proposal [1] uses "rule number" in its title and "ID
number" in its text:
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> Proposal 5115 (Democratic, AI=3, Disinterested) by Zefram
> restore enforcement of rule number stability
>
> Amend rule 2141 by replacing the paragraph
>
> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
>
> with
>
> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor. A rule
> CANNOT have the same ID number as any other rule. Once
> assigned, a rule's ID number cannot be changed.
>
> [This only applies if P5110 "Regulate ID numbers" generalised the
> assignment of ID numbers. The new rule "ID Numbers" says that ID
> numbers must be distinct and can't be changed, but that's only at
> power=2. For rules, especially with ID numbers being used to
> determine precedence, these things should be enforced at power=3. The
> detailed procedure for ID number selection and assignment remains
> separate in the "ID Numbers" rule.]
>
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
CFJ 1876 [2] uses "rule number" while the contemporary ruleset [3] uses
"ID number". This is not commented upon. See also CFJ 2513.
The following proposal (never distributed?) [4] uses "rule number" to
describe what the contemporary ruleset [5] calls "ID numbers" (and even
uses it to describe the specific ID numbers in question):
> ---
>
> Title: Sudden Death
> Author: G.
> AI: 1.0
> II: 1
> Chamber: Green
>
> [A bonus temporary win condition that only two people should ever
> be able to achieve. Start your engines!]
>
> Create the following rule, Sudden Death.
>
> The next player who wins the game by Renaissance simultaneously
> wins the game by satisfying the winning condition IN OVERTIME,
> provided no other player won the game by Renaissance in the
> same instant.
>
> If a player has won the game by Renaissance since the creation
> of this rule, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause
> this rule to cause Rule 2199 to repeal itself.
>
> The next player who wins the game by high score simultaneously
> wins the game by satisfying the winning condition IN OVERTIME,
> provided no other player won the game by high score in the
> same instant.
>
> If a player has won the game by High Score since the creation
> of this rule, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by a single announcement,
> cause this rule to cause Rules 2179, 2187, 2232, 2233, and 2234
> to repeal themselves in order.
>
> If none of the rules listed by rule number in the text of this
> rule exist, the Herald CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause
> this rule to repeal itself.
>
> ---
The following proposal [6] uses "rule number" in its title and "ID
number" in its text:
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> Proposal 6992 (Democratic, AI=3.0) by Murphy
> (coauth: omd)
> Fix rule numbers
>
> Ratify all rule ID numbers in the document purported to be the
> Short Logical Ruleset and published on or about Thu, 3 Mar 2011
> 14:40:44 -0500.
>
> Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "modify"
> with "set or modify".
>
> Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) by replacing this
> text:
>
> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor, and are
> strictly ordered.
>
> Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a
> rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign
> a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.
>
> For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
> the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
> substantive aspects of the rule.
>
> with this text:
>
> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
>
> Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a
> rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor SHALL assign
> a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.
>
> For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
> the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
> substantive aspects of the rule. However, rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as described
> elsewhere in this rule.
>
>
>
DIS: Re: BUS: Reconsidering 4069
What evidence do you have that rule numbers and Id numbers are the same? Because arguing that this case is false has definitive disastrous effects, so is there another way to judge this case outside of those two options? On Sun, Mar 17, 2024, 6:52 PM Aris via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 5:36 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider in CFJ > > 4069. The arguments require that the "ID number" of a Rule and the "rule > > number" of a Rule are different things, which fails the "game custom" > > and "common sense" tiebreaks and would likely be catastrophic if > > actually applied consistently historically. > > > I support. > > -Aris >
