That is quite scary, but I think we're OK - R2577 says "CANNOT be destroyed
except by a proposal or rule", not "CAN be destroyed by a proposal or rule", so
although it's not _preventing_ unadopted proposals from defining how to destroy
assets, it's not creating a _mechanism_ by which they might do so. And one
would hope that no such mechanism exists, although I'm sure ais523 has one up
eir sleeve.
-twg
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 5:35 AM, Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would personally argue that a proposal does not need to take effect in
> order to simply describe permisibility of an action, and thus this
> rule would delegate to all such proposals, even those not yet adopted or
> those explicitly voted down.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/10/19 8:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents
> > like
> > that. A good example is Tournaments (R2464) where winning is delegated -
> > at times we've allowed tournaments to hold/award Coins and change other
> > game quantities other than winning.
> > For Proposals specifically I think that would be a court case - by
> > R106, a
> > proposal "takes effect" and applies all its provisions
> > instantaneously, then
> > is done. I'm not sure a continuous effect like that in a proposal would
> > "continue having effect" once its done.
> > On 6/10/2019 4:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >
> > > I might be missing some precedent here, but if the wording was
> > > "except as described by a proposal or rule", then couldn't I submit a
> > > proposal that says something to the effect of "Any player CAN, by
> > > announcement, expunge any number of Blots from emself." and then have
> > > that wording captured by the Rule?
> > > The authorizing Instrument would be the Rule, giving it power to do
> > > secured changes. The Rule explicitly delegates to the proposal, thus
> > > effectively giving it the entire power of the Rule to destroy assets.
> > > Jason Cobb
> > > On 6/10/19 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Interesting catch.
> > > > It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
> > > > "except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
> > > > that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as
> > > > described"
> > > > part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
> > > > attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
> > > > knowledge.
> > > > On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e
> > > > > has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the
> > > > > current Agoran week."
> > > > > Caller's Evidence ================= Excerpt from Rule 2555/2
> > > > > ("Blots") [Power=2]
> > > > > Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
> > > > > restricted to persons.
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots
> > > > > from
> > > > > emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
> > > > > emself by announcement.
> > > > > Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
> > > > > An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
> > > > > announcement,
> > > > > subject to modification by its backing document. An
> > > > > indestructible
> > > > > asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and
> > > > > CANNOT be
> > > > > destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
> > > > > specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible
> > > > > assets
> > > > > or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Caller's Arguments
> > > > >
> > > > > ===================
> > > > >
> > > > > I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from
> > > > > emself, then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule
> > > > > 2577, the Blot CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a
> > > > > proposal or rule, other than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing
> > > > > the destruction of indestructible assets or that asset in
> > > > > particular", but rather by the Player.
> > > > > I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as
> > > > > the definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in
> > > > > Rule 2555, but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the
> > > > > definition, and then later attempts to override the definition in
> > > > > Rule 2577. Thus the conflict is between two Rules, rather than
> > > > > within the text of a certain rule.
> > > > > If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030
> > > > > ("Precedence between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher
> > > > > Power takes precedence. In this case that is Rule 2577. This would
> > > > > mean that Blots CANNOT be destroyed.
> > > > > I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
> > > > > [NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I
> > > > > will withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on
> > > > > "indestructible" assets, and the ones that I found on Blots seemed
> > > > > not to be relevant. I was unable to find precedent on conflicts
> > > > > with definitions solely by searching the statements of CFJs.]
