You're right. I was waiting for the dust to settle before trying to
sort things out. Does the following look correct?
Also, feel free to just withdraw "no power is all powerful" if you
want to; it would simplify things a bit in some ways, and it's not
like it would work even if it passed.
-Aris
---
Proposal 8197 was never validly distributed.
Revision: At ~01:55:32 UTC Jul 2, when the last proposal pool report was
published, the proposal pool contained the following proposals:
Author(s) AI Title
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. none no power is all powerful
Jason Cobb, [1] 3.0 Regulated actions reform (v2)
[1] Aris, omd, G., Falsifian
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Title: no power is all powerful
Adoption index: none
Author: G.
Co-authors:
Create the following Rule, "Supreme Power", Power=4:
G. CAN make arbitrary changes to the gamestate by announcement.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Title: Regulated actions reform (v2)
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors: Aris, omd, G., Falsifian
[Comment: see proto thread for changes and rationales.]
Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations are
binding."
Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") as follows:
Append the following sentence to the first paragraph: "Contracts are
binding."
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An entity is binding if and only if the Rules designate it as such.
The Rules as a whole is an entity that is binding; this entity is
known as the ruleset.
An action is regulated by a binding entity if: (1) the entity
directly and explicitly defines, limits, allows, enables, permits,
forbids, or requires its performance; (2) the entity describes the
circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3)
the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for
which the entity requires some player to be a "recordkeepor".
When a binding entity explicitly defines an action, describes the
possibility of performing an action, or describes the methods by
which an action can be performed, it creates an action that is
distinct from all other actions; the binding entity is said to "own"
this created action. A binding entity CAN only state that it
requires or forbids an action that it does not own; it CANNOT modify
any other properties of the action.
An action that is owned by a binding entity CAN only be performed as
described by the entity, and only using the methods explicitly
specified in the entity for performing the given action.
Interpretations that result in the entity directly proscribing
actions that are not regulated by it are invalid.
Retitle Rule 2125 to "Binding Entities".
Set the power of Rule 2125 to 3.1.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
---
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:54 AM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Just noticed this didn't go to the PF and didn't see an informal
> response/revision (sorry if I missed it).
>
> CoE: the Proposal Pool is not empty, it contains the proposal noted
> below.
>
> On 7/1/2019 10:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Accepted, revision: The AI of proposal 8197 is none, but the AI of the
> > decision on whether to adopt that proposal is 1.0.
> >
> > -Aris
>
>
