At what point do we just power-4 "Persons CANNOT be Instruments"?
On 2019-02-06 14:41, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Actually that Security thing is a big hole, there's lots of stuff that's
secured, and R1688 applies the method here:
> except as allowed by an Instrument
If "allowed" is defined as something a person can do "naturally" (the
way we
treat, say, "agree"), then when the instrument is a natural person, e
could
just say "I allow, on an ongoing basis, changes to happen when I perform
them by announcement" and the method is supplied.
Also, R105 specifies that an instrument can make a rule change "as
part of
effect", though it would get pretty philosophical to figure out how a
person's "effect" is triggered (at the very least, R105 limits it to a
publicly-written process of at least 4 days).
On 2/5/2019 6:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
It still matters what the rules say about the order of precedence,
because
the order of precedence is decided by the rules. If the rule defining
the
order of precedence was repealed, there wouldn't be an order of
precedence,
and power would have no effect in that regard. As it happens, the
power of
an instrument that isn’t a rule currently doesn’t have any effect
outside
secured things and changing entities with higher power.
-Aris
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:59 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it
matter
what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person
overrules them?
I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is
willing
to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says.
On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:
I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation
wouldn’t be
a barrier anymore, though.
I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything
other
than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
