Well, OK. We might we going in circles now lol. I'll compile this up and make a CFJ then. Thank you very much PSS, I appreciate the insight a lot. It helped me find quite a lot of more interesting stuff for the case.
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Ratification doesn’t modify anything, it just makes something true without > the need for any process to occur. > ---- > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > On Jul 9, 2017, at 7:56 AM, CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Yes, however the action of Ratifying itself wouldn't have been able to > happen because it would've attempted to change the rules, with are > preconditions in the rules that already existed for the ratification itself > to take place. > > > > Imagine we added that: > > > > "Ratification can't be performed by anyone.", and then I attempted to > Ratify and the Ratification "passed". It wouldn't have actually passed - > just looked like it - because the Ratification wouldn't have been able to > be done in the first place. > > > > That or the Ratification actually didn't add Rules, but that would > contradict "When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that > the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the time it was > published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a document does not > invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any messages or actions, even if they > were unrecorded or overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted > action." > > > > Or, even if it was illegal, it actually happened (considering " change > the legality of any attempted action."), in which case, can I attempt to do > illegal stuff and have it be successful as if it was legal? > > > > So, before that Ruleset Ratification, there weren't circumstances for > such a Ratification to actually be performed. > > > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > However, ratification would make it true and overrides the Rule Changes > rule because with ratification it never changes anything, it makes things > true instantaneously. > > ---- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2017, at 7:22 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > From: http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/ > msg00165.html , it contains Proposal 5101, which passed and amended the > whole rule on August 1st and there was no other change until September - > right at the timeframe of the vulnerability. > > > > > > So I got the Ratification rules of back then over here: > > > > > > Any player CAN ratify any purported publication of all or part > > > of an official report, without objection. > > > > > > When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that > > > the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the > > > time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a > > > document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any > > > messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked, > > > or change the legality of any attempted action. > > > > > > Where part of an official report has been the subject of a > > > ratification, the date of the most recent such ratification is > > > part of the same official report. > > > > > > > > > > > > I also have the Rule Changes rules from back then, > http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg00002.html , > via Proposal 4940: > > > > > > Amend the rule titled "Rule Changes" to read: > > > > > > Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can, > > > as part of its effect, > > > > > > (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum of > > > the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting > > > to one if the enacting instrument does not specify, and the > > > maximum power permitted by other rules. The enacting > instrument > > > may specify a title for the new rule, which if present shall > > > prevail. The number of the new rule cannot be specified by > the > > > enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and > void. > > > > > > (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a > rule, > > > and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it. > > > > > > (c) amend the text of a rule. > > > > > > (d) retitle a rule. > > > > > > (e) change the power of a rule. > > > > > > A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. > > > Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. > > > > > > Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that > > > change to be void and without effect. A variation in whitespace > > > or capitalization in the quotation of an existing rule does not > > > constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other > > > variation does. > > > > > > This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be > created, > > > modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule > > > or cease to be a rule. > > > > > > > > > I believe that your way about how the Rule would've been added is that > the Ratification would've added it in, without an Assesor, would be via > Ratification, but with the stuff found here in my dredging, I don't believe > it would've worked. Adding that rule would've been a "rule change", and a > "A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.". > > > > > > The Ratification of the Ruleset would've (attempted) to straight up > made that it was true that the rule was in there, but not that it had been > actually added at any time or actually *enacted*, which is the only > mechanism via the which the rule could change. > > > > > > Additionally, such a Ratification would've attempted to Ratify the > Ruleset (as in, the whole Ruleset), at once. But it wouldn't have been able > to happen, because, " The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the > enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.", and > since it would've attempted to specify the number of the would-be new rule, > the attempts of Ratification of the Ruleset would've all been null and void. > > > > > > It might be good to raise a CFJ at this point but please let me know > if there's anything else that might cancel what I've pointed out. > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > The ruleset has probably been ratified since Proposal 5111 resolving > that problem. > > > ---- > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 9, 2017, at 3:54 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > I checked the proposal history. There has been a time where Switches > had higher Power than Offices, making its switch not a switch, ergo, there > have been no Officeholders since (Possibly?). > > > > > > > > Of course this would screw over a lot of things, would it be so, but > everything we're doing wouldn't actually matter if everything has been > bogus since. > > > > > > > > Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no > Officeholders." > > > > > > > > Gratuitous Arguments: > > > > - "Switches" (or at least the modern implementation of it, as it > wasn't there before) were Created by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007. > You can see that proposal here: http://www.mail-archive.com/ > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org/msg08096.html, and it says: > > > > > > > > Create a rule titled "Switches" with Power 2 and this text: > > > > > > > > "A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch, > and specify the following: (...) > > > > 2. One or more possible values for instances of that switch, exactly > one of which is designated as the default. No other values are possible for > instances of that switch." > > > > > > > > - The Power of the Offices rule changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 > (Zefram), 13 August 2007. > > > > > > > > - Our Anti-Ossification protection didn't exist until Proposal 5536 > (Murphy), 7 June 2008, which added: > > > > > > > > "In the interest of safeguarding Agora's nomic-ness, if a change to > the gamestate would otherwise make it IMPOSSIBLE to make arbitrary rule > changes and/or adopt arbitrary proposals within a four-week period by any > combinations of actions by players, then that change is canceled and does > not occur, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding." > > > > > > > > - From the 2nd of August onwards, we have been in a state were there > have been no Officeholders, because Switches need a default, and > Officeholders had none, so it wasn't a switch. Proposal 5133, which > would've solved the problem, actually hasn't been enacted - because there > need to be Office(s) to do so (The Assesor, Promotor, etc). We didn't have > the Anti-Ossification rules to prevent this either (and if they did, then > Proposal 5111 would've actually never done anything, and we have never > actually had our modern Switches) > > > > > > > > Non-Proposal (and Non-Office dependent rule-changes in general, > really) Rule-changes aside, the Ruleset hasn't actually changed since the > 2nd of August 2007. > > > > > > > > > > > >
