On Mon, 15 Apr 2013, woggle wrote:
> On 4/14/13 16:44 , Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Create the following Rule, Low-level Rules, power 0.5:
> >
> > A first-class Player CAN, without 3 objections, cause
> > this Rule to make a Rule Change to a Rule with a Power
> > less than 0.5. However, any announcements of intent
> > to do so is null, void, and wholly without effect if
> > the player has previously made such an announcement
> > of intent in the current Agoran week.
Machiavelli wrote:
> I think the second sentence doesn't work. The effect of an
> announcement of intent comes from Rule 1728; you can't make an
> announcement of intent ineffective without overriding Rule 1728.
You're probably right. I think the easiest way (that I was trying to avoid)
is to make a category of player and a specific invokation method:
A player who is not an Adjuster CAN change a Rule Without Three
Objections by labeling the announcement of intent as a Low-Level Change.
A Adjuster is someone who has posted such a labelled announcement in
the current Agoran week. An Adjuster who attempts to post such an
announcement commits [some minor crime].
[This puts the limitation on the whole change method, not the notice of
intent itself, so it should work].
woggle wrote:
> Note that R1728 doesn't appear to prohibit resolving the same intent twice
> [though I wouldn't be shocked if there's some old CFJ on this issue I'm
> forgetting...]
Performing an action by a method is a singular whole event. It's not really
different than claiming that a single announcement of doing a single thing
could be applied twice. But I also don't know the case law.
> Also, you probably want it to be clearer how to count announcements of intent.
> E.g. how many of these would be legal? How many would be legal to resolve
> twice?
The intent of limiting to one/week is not to stop someone from making a lot of
changes with one intent announcement, but rather to prevent spamming of lots of
intent announcements that are not used (or possibly red herrings). So listing
several changes in one announcement should be fine.
I also think the case law about being absolutely specific about both
announcements of intent ("unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
method") and rule changes ("Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change
causes that change to be void") would protect against text substitution via
promises or other indirection tricks.
-G.
