Re: Fwd: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 7/3/2020 1:33 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2020-07-03 7:56 p.m., Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 7/3/2020 12:24 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> Maybe worth also mentioning: back in February I tried to patch over
>>> this problem with Proposal 8328, The Eternal Sprit [sic... didn't
>>> notice the typo until now]
>>>
>>> Proposal text was 'Amend Rule 869 by replacing the text "is a person"
>>> with "is forever a person".' Final F/A was 21/12 for AI 3.0.
>>
>> Looks like my vote against wasn't strongly against and I was just vaguely
>> nervous about the word "forever":
>>
>> I wrote:
>>>> 8328*  Falsifian                3.0   The Eternal Sprit
>>> AGAINST.  I dislike this sort of asserting-of-permanence for reasons I
>>> can't quite put my finger on.
>>
>> How about a version that says "a player can't cease being a person while
>> they are a player"?  Then we could respectfully deregister someone if the
>> worst happens and not worry too much about 'forever'.
>>
>> -G.
> 
> That would solve most recordkeeping problems, but it would still mean 
> Tailor and Referee reports could be incorrect without our knowledge.

Hmm - Fugitive blots decay, and ribbons are probably easy to reconstruct
(slow moving).  Not perfect but also doesn't propagate errors like
registration, etc.?

> We could try defining personhood by saying any entity meeting the 
> conditions becomes a person if e wasn't already, and not adding any 
> conditions under which an entity stops being a person, thus avoiding the 
> word "forever", but that would be kind of weird.
> 
> Maybe we should go with our suggested text.
> 

I don't mind too much if "forever" is truly the cleanest way, that won't
kill my vote this time.

-G.