> On a possibly more worrying note, I note that "the Rules … allow … its performance" in rule 2125 means that pretty much everything is regulated anyway
Yep, I found that as well. I have always believed that doing unregulated things has always been impossible because everything is regulated (the rules limit what "unregulated" things are by the boundary of what regulated things are, anyways), but people seemed to disagree with that and the interpretation that unregulated things aren't already fucked and "it just works lol" is funner for this Pledge shenanigans lol On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 12:10 AM [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 11:37 -0400, D Margaux wrote: > > > Is it possible that the pledge requires > > > Cuddlebeam to be the > > > recordkeepor of everything, without > > > actually /making/ Cuddlebeam the > > > recordkeepor of everything? > > > > Perhaps it does, but I think the pledge would still ossify Agora. > > > > I think the question is whether CuddleBeam’s pledge (if effective) > converts > > all the information in the universe into “information for which some > player > > is /required/ to be a recordkeepor.” (Rule 2125) > > > > If so, then the pledge would ossify Agora and must be ineffective. > > > > If not, then perhaps the pledge is effective. > > > > In any case this is all very confusing, and one hopes that a worthy > Agoran > > can untangle it in resolving CB’s CFJ. > > After checking the rules: violating pledges is defined as a crime, but > I can't see any actual requirement to avoid committing crime. The > relationship between crimes and illegal actions does not seem to be > well-defined. The most plausible readings of the rules I can see (based > on Trigon's recent attempt at producing a ruleset) are: > > a) Crimes are "violations" punishable under rule 2478, but not ILLEGAL. > Thus, there's no requirement to avoid committing them, but someone who > does commit one can be punished for it. > > b) Crimes are actions which, if punished, incur an enhanced punishment, > but which are not necessarily illegal. As such, they can only legally > be punished in the first place if they happen to be illegal for > unrelated reasons. > > I actually think b) is the most plausible reading of the present > ruleset, which has maybe negative implications for law and order and > keeping down oathbreaking, but which sorts out the immediate problem > fairly neatly. "Crimes are illegal" is something that can only be > deduced from the natural-language meanings of the word, which is > awkward given that ILLEGAL is so precisely defined. (Now I'm wondering > if it matters that rule 2125 says "required to be" not "REQUIRED to > be".) > > One other point worth noting is that regulated actions are not > automatically IMPOSSIBLE; rather, they can only be performed using > methods specified in the rules. Things like "sending messages" can be > done, even if regulated, because rule 478 explains how to send a > message (and thus rule 2125 does not ban doing so). > > On a possibly more worrying note, I note that "the Rules … allow … its > performance" in rule 2125 means that pretty much everything is > regulated anyway (and that everything unregulated is impossible, given > that there's an "explicitly" missing). So we may have been in a > Cuddlebeam-style crisis all along, and may need to look at the > histories of rules 478 and 2125 and 1698 to work out whether there is > a crisis, and if so, what the current gamestate/ruleset is. > > -- > ais523 > >
