Oh I personally don't want to change the current situation except use CFJs to reign in the more unreasonable conditionals. But I *really* don't want a broken implementation at power-1 to argue over, so if there's a vote to be had it should be a vote over modifying R478.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > Or we could just stick with the precedent that conditionals need to be > reasonable (some combination of being comprehensible to the general > public and being easily resolvable by the responsible officer). > > -Aris > > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > We've defined (by precedent) that the standards for clarity for R478 > > include simple conditionals. R478 is power-3, and lower-powered > > definitions are only "guidance". I find it hard to believe that the > > simplest conditionals (e.g. "If I did not just succeed with method A, > > I do it with method B") wouldn't continue to meet R478 standards of > > clarity. > > > > Ergo, this needs to be power-3 and include a "rules to the contrary > > notwithstanding", or it doesn't work. Better yet, put it in R478 so > > it's all self-contained. > > > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > >> Proposal: Conditional Ban (AI=1, pend=AP) > >> {{{ > >> Enact a new rule entitled 'Unconditionality' reading "Except where the > >> rules, implicitly or explicitly, provide a mechanism to do so, actions > >> CANNOT be performed conditionally." > >> }}} > >>
