True, but other rules state that proposals can generally change rules and the gamestate in general. This rule only imposes an additional limitation. If we repealed this rule, any proposal at any power would be able to change any rule at any power, meaning that power would no longer control mutability, only precedence.
-Aris On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:33 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > Does that Rule necessarily imply that an Instrument with power equal to > or above 3.0 CAN cause those changes? If no entity could perform those > changes, that Rule would still be accurate. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/23/19 3:30 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Yes. AI 3.0 proposals are functionally omnipotent. The reason lies in > > Rule 2140, "Power Controls Mutability", which says: > > > > "No entity with power below the power of this rule can > > > > > > 1. cause an entity to have power greater than its own. > > > > 2. adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than its > > own. > > > > 3. set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument > > with power greater than its own. A "substantive" aspect of an > > instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument's > > operation." > > > > However, that rule is only power 3.0, so proposals at power 3.0 can > > change rules at any power. This is convenient, because first off if a > > proposal passes at AI 3.0, it has consensus, and secondly because it > > allows us to use powers greater than 3.0 solely for controlling > > precedence. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:26 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Can an AI 3.0 proposal create a power 3.1 Rule? > >> > >> Jason Cobb > >> > >> On 6/23/19 3:12 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > >>> I submit the following proposal. > >>> > >>> -Aris > >>> --- > >>> Title: Timeline Control Ordnance v2 > >>> Adoption index: 3.0 > >>> Author: Aris > >>> Co-authors: omd, Jason Cobb > >>> > >>> Enact a new power 3.1 Rule, entitled "Timelines", with the following > text: > >>> > >>> A timeline is a temporal sequence of events and states. > >>> > >>> The Objective Timeline is the timeline of matters as they actually > happened. > >>> On the Objective Timeline, the consequences of an event are > determined > >>> based on the conditions actually in effect, under Agoran law, when > that event > >>> occurred. The Objective Timeline is not part of the gamestate; > instead, it > >>> is the recording of events on reality itself, and changing it > retroactively > >>> without actual time travel is thus IMPOSSIBLE, rules to the > contrary > >>> notwithstanding. > >>> > >>> The Standard Timeline is the timeline used for the purposes of > ordinary > >>> gameplay. By default, the Standard Timeline is defined by events > and their > >>> consequences in the same way that the Objective Timeline is. > However, > >>> the Standard Timeline is part of the gamestate. Accordingly, it > can be > >>> modified retroactively; such retroactive modifications are secured > >>> at power 3. > >>> > >>> Attempted retroactive changes are to be interpreted as attempts to > change the > >>> Standard Timeline. All changes are to be interpreted as > prospective unless > >>> they are explicitly retroactive. > >>> > >>> By default, any entity with a power less than the power of this > rule that > >>> refers to the past, present, or future is to be interpreted as > referring to > >>> the Standard Timeline; however, entities may explicitly reference > >>> different timelines. > >>> > >>> Amend Rule 1551, "Ratification" by changing the text "the gamestate is > modified" > >>> to read "the gamestate is retroactively modified". > >>> > >>> Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgements", by changing the text > >>> > >>> "The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on > >>> the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was > >>> initiated, not taking into account any events since that time:" > >>> > >>> to read > >>> > >>> "The judgement of an inquiry case should be based on the facts and > legal > >>> situation as they objectively existed at the time the inquiry case > was > >>> initiated, not taking into account any events or retroactive > modifications > >>> since that time. > >>> > >>> The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows:" >
