I'll resolve the issue of what clarity means in the CFJ I was just assigned, given that it's the primary issue over there. I have a definition general enough that it covers all of these cases. I'm not going to go into details yet, but I don't think most of these would count as clear, so nothing would be removed.
-Aris On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 9:24 AM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Your proto clarified the underlying issue for me. For the most part, we > treat in-proposal textual substitutions (e.g. your "inserts") as part of > the sequence of the proposal "taking effect". In other words, the > following would work: > //// > 1. Every player with property X hereby wins the game. > > 2. If any player has won the game as a result of this proposal, amend > Rule Y to read as follows, substituting the player's name for [name]: > { [name] is the ruler of Agora}. > //// > > I think no one would have trouble saying that the substitution happens > *at* step 2, after the Win, as part of the proposal taking effect. > > However, the new comments clause, by using "before", has added some kind > of "pre-processing" step to R106: > > Clearly marked comments are considered > > to be removed from the proposal before it takes effect, unless > > otherwise stated by the proposal. > > This introduces the concept of "marking" (textual/formatting clues that > may or may not be part of the body of the proposal), but also a new step > of "scanning the proposal for comments and removing them" before the > proposal takes effect. > > And we don't know a lot about this procedure. Are substitutions allowed? > Are they simultaneous or applied in sequence? Do you have to specify > "pre-processor" directives separate from main effects? If the proposal > "otherwise states" something about comments, when are those statements > "executed"? Can "main effects" work retroactively and change things into > comments that are then (retroactively) removed? (The words "clearly" are > not really useful here - as discussed during your win-by-apathy thing, > "clear" allows for all sorts of substitutions in other contexts. > > Depending on how these questions are answered there can be all kind of > paradoxes and other textual play introduced in some way... > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > For example, this protoproposal would > > resolve the bleach issue: > > > > //// > > > > 1. For the purposes of paragraph 2 of this proposal, let the following > > terms have the following definitions: > > > > “Execute X” means to insert into the proposal the value of X, where X > > is a text variable with a value set in this proposal. > > > > “L” is a text variable with the following value: “All text to the > > right of the double pipe marks is a comment. The following players win the > > game: [names].” > > > > “R” is a text variable with the following value: “All text to the left > > of the double pipe marks and to the right of the paragraph number is a > > comment. The following players win the game: [names].” > > > > “double pipe marks” is the name given to two back-to-back instances of > > the symbol “|”. > > > > 2. Execute L || Execute R > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:32 AM D Margaux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > One way to make it more airtight is to define variables for each string, > > > and then have the proposal execute them. > > > > > > On further consideration, I think the whitespace/bleach solution has a > > > flaw. The rule says that whitespace “generally” doesn’t matter. This > > > situation is one where that “general” rule probably doesn’t apply. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:51 AM Cuddle Beam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> I love the proposal, I just I dislike the ambiguity because it might > > >> defuse > > >> it and then there's no fun lol > > >> > > >> I like the whitespace angle too, it opens the doors to another style of > > >> "paradox" (and scam, quite likely). > > >> > > >> Maybe we could figure out a way to make L||R more watertight and resubmit > > >> it. > > >> > > >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:44 AM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > > >> > > This may actually suggest a general principle for avoiding > > >> > > ambiguities > > >> > > like this one: as the formatting of text is irrelevant, an attempt to > > >> > > specify something in a way that doesn't have a clear > > >> > > "start-to-finish" > > >> > > order is failing to uniquely specify the text in question, and thus > > >> > > is > > >> > > too ambiguous to work. > > >> > > > >> > First, non-"start-to-finish" text has been allowed to have effects > > >> > before: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1267 > > >> > > > >> > But here's the new bit! The following text that was added to R106 in > > >> > July this year: > > >> > > > >> > > Clearly marked comments are considered > > >> > > to be removed from the proposal before it takes effect, unless > > >> > > otherwise stated by the proposal. > > >> > > > >> > (at least that's the text I was trying to get at, D. Margaux's Bleach > > >> > argument is a clever alternative). > > >> > > > >> > The thing is, marking comments often relies on textual formatting, at > > >> > least for end-of-line comments (not so much for parenthetical comments, > > >> > perhaps). So what does the "marking" in "clearly marking" mean? Can > > >> > we use formatting clues? (formatting clues *do* "mark" things). And > > >> > if a comment marks itself as a comment (but it is otherwise "considered > > >> > removed") it might still count as a comment "before" it is removed. > > >> > > > >> > Ignoring the rest of the rules and focusing on this clause, I could > > >> > imagine at least four outcomes: > > >> > > > >> > 1. The comments are ambiguous, therefore not "clearly marked", > > >> > therefore nothing in the proposal is removed, and there's enough > > >> > textual clarity (e.g. the marks demonstrated intended readings) in > > >> > both halves that both halves are effective. > > >> > > > >> > 2. As #1, but you're forced to read L to R which leads to > > >> > ineffective nonsense. > > >> > > > >> > 3. The comments mark each other, and then are considered removed, > > >> > so the whole thing is a big comment and does nothing. > > >> > > > >> > 4. Similar to CFJ 1267, we decide that one portion is "naturally in > > >> > front" of the other (probably the left portion, given CFJs 3534-3535) > > >> > and that portion succeeds in removing the other portion as a comment. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- > > > D. Margaux > > > > > -- > > D. Margaux > >
