On 1/17/2020 9:33 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> Judge's Arguments for CFJs 3784 and 3785, as well as the whimsically
> quasi-existent CFJ 3785.5
This is a clever judgement, and covers a lot of the ground well, but
honestly I feel like this is missing something. R106 reads in part:
Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that
takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the
changes that it specifies.
So - which rule is actually doing the "prohibiting" here? To me, that R106
statement is a pretty strong one - up there on the level of saying "if
nothing outright and directly forbids proposals from making this thing
happen, the gamestate is minimally modified so it happens."
No, you might say - well "physical reality" prevents it because the Proposal
has no coins. But - that "physical reality" is all a matter of precedence
on how we deal with assets, and there's no actual "prohibition" that R106
requires.
After all, we frequently use proposals to set game quantities in a way that
gets around our defined "physical reality". For example, if, as part of a
reset, a proposal read "Entities' coin holdings are hereby set to be..."
followed by list of everyone's holdings, we wouldn't say "wait a minute,
that creates/destroys coins without saying so" and block it from happening.
So this judgement actually extends the concept of physical reality quite a
bit, by saying "even though no rule outright forbids this, we're still
saying it's R106-prohibited due to our (unwritten) precedents about assets."
I'm not saying it's wrong, but I think it's important enough that it should
be brought into the judgement directly.
-G.
