Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a
crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters the
Rules-defined "state" of whether or not they are guilty of a crime. Is
this a valid reading, and is this intended?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 1:50 AM, omd wrote:
Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An action is regulated if it:
(a) consists of altering Rules-defined state (e.g. the act of
flipping a Citizenship switch), or
(b) is a Rules-defined term of art with no inherent meaning
(e.g. the act of "distributing" a proposal).
Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
the following:
For regulated actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends on
the mechanism(s) the rules define for performing the action. If
no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
perform the action.
[[[
More explicit than my last proposal; still a (slight) net decrease in
word count. I like this version.
The new definition does not explicitly address 'actions' that consist
only *in part* of altering Rules-defined state, e.g. "wearing a hat
and flipping a Citizenship switch". I think not addressing them is
actually correct. "Putting on a hat and then flipping a Citizenship
switch" has a ground-truth definition, which inherently determines
whether and when it possible to take that action: namely, it's defined
as {putting on a hat (which itself has a ground-truth definition)} and
then {flipping a Citizenship switch (which is defined in the Rules)}.
The Rules should not, and perhaps cannot, define it as something other
than the combination of those two things. Instead, they just
indirectly determine the possibility of the whole by defining the
possibility of the part.
]]]
