On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:45 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business
<agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as follows:
I feel like this makes more sense in a high-power rule so it doesn't
break with secured actions.
The broad wording also makes me very nervous about scams. Admittedly,
after a cursory search, I can't find anything in the ruleset that
would be clearly scammable. But I did find this:
A rule can also designate that a part of one public
message is considered a public message in its own right.
Can any person, by Agoran Consent, cause a rule to designate that part
of a public message is considered a public message in its own right?
If not, where do the Rules "state the mechanism by which" a rule can
do so? Admittedly, the intended mechanism is clear, but it's not
explicitly mentioned in connection with this clause. Is it implicitly
"stated" as part of the sentence as a whole? Or perhaps some of the
wording in Rule 2141's first paragraph (e.g. "A rule's content takes
the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.") counts as "stating" a
mechanism? The latter sounds more plausible to me, and I think I'd
judge that it does, but it's still a close call.
That said, being able to pull off a scam with Agoran Consent would not
be the end of the world either.
