I favor any CFJ(s) coming out of this. -Aris
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:44 PM Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 15:46 -0700, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > COE: this report omits the value of the Floating Value switch, > > required by rule 2139 (“The Registrar”) and rule 2497 (“Floating > > Value”). > > I was busy writing up a CFJ about whether this was a "stop the > gamestate ratifying" sort of COE that had legal effect (mostly on the > basis that a COE has to identify an error in a self-ratifying document, > whereas this is claiming that a self-ratifying document doesn't exist). > > However, I came across a much bigger problem: the rule states that > Floating Value is a switch, but not which entities have such a switch > (it's missing the word "singleton"). "The Floating Value" may well be > meaningless. Or perhaps there's a legal fiction that it's a value that > can be set, despite also being a switch. (Something Agora's rules have > always been very fuzzy on is whether a single imaginary gamestate > entity can be multiple types of entity at the same time; for example, > is it possible for the text of a rule to simultaneously be a proposal? > I don't think there's any mechanism that could attempt to create such a > gamestate at the moment, other than outpowering rule 105, but the > restrictions in the rules are against creating such a state, and are > silent on whether such a state can exist.) Or perhaps the rules imply > there's exactly one such switch, even though we can't tell which entity > it belongs to. > > The Registrar's Report before the one that was CoEd my well have self- > ratified the Floating Value as 0 (it's defined as containing a list of > all Floating Value switches that don't have their default value of 0, > thus given that no such list is present, arguably all Floating Value > switches must be at 0). In this case, many Shiny awards may have failed > to do anything useful (although I think it'd probably be in the best > interests of the game to let the Secretary's report self-ratify > anyway...). > > It's possible that Rule 2379 is a counterargument to this, though; but > perhaps not. In general, publishing a zero-length document is not an > observable action, so how can you tell whether it happened or not? Rule > 2379 attempts to get around the problem by requiring a report as to the > existence of the zero-length document, but unfortunately that part of > the report is not part of the self-ratifying document itself. (It > wasn't constructed in an attempt to prevent zero-length documents self- > ratifying, something that I'm not sure anyone has thought about before, > but as a method of shutting down a rather creative argument I once used > in an attempt to claim pay for a report I hadn't been posting but which > didn't contain any non-default information at the time.) > > -- > ais523 >
