On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 11:27 AM Falsifian via agora-discussion
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have a new draft!
>
> Thanks for putting this together, Aris. A few comments and questions
> below.
Thank you for the feedback. I know it's a lot to dig through.
> > Amend Rule 1688, "Power", by, all as part of the same amendment,
>
> The numbers below aren't lined up:
Fixed.
> > 1. Replacing:
> > A statute is a document with positive Power.
> > with:
> > An instrument is an entity with positive Power.
> > 2. Replacing:
> > A Rule that makes a change, action, or value secured (hereafter
>
> > Amend Rule 2438, "Ribbons", by replacing "statute" with "instrument".
>
> Should replace "A statute" with "An instrument".
Fixed.
> > Amend Rule 2140, "Power Controls Mutability", by changing it to read in
> > full:
>
> Just to double-check: the old text has a provision "An ephemeral
> instrument is bound by ..." that's not in the new text. I guess that
> doesn't matter because now there won't be any ephemeral instruments
> (once Rulebending gets repealed). Is that right?
Yeah, there won't be any such thing as an ephemeral instrument
anymore. Also, we managed fine without that provision before, and it
didn't feel like it fit in this rule.
> > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, 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.
> > .
>
> Extra "." here.
That's... weird. It's not in my local copy? I don't think it is,
anyway? No clue how it got in here.
> > Amend Rule 106, "Adopting Proposals", by changing it to read in full:
> >
> > When a referendum on a proposal is resolved, if the outcome is ADOPTED,
> > then the proposal in question is adopted, its power is set to the
> > minimum
> > of four and its adoption index, and it takes effect. Proposals CANNOT
> > otherwise be adopted or take effect, rules to the contrary
> > notwithstanding.
> >
> > When a proposal takes effect, the proposal applies the changes that it
> > specifies, except as prohibited by other rules. Clearly marked comments
> > are ignored. If the proposal cannot make some changes it specifies, that
> > does not preclude the other changes from taking place.
> >
> > Except insofar as the actions performed by a proposal happen one after
> > another, rather than simultaneously, a proposal's effect is
> > instantaneous. A proposal can neither delay nor extend its own effect.
> > Once a proposal finishes taking effect, its power is set to 0.
> >
> > No entity with power below the power of this rule can prevent a proposal
> > from taking effect; this does not apply to generally preventing changes
> > to
> > specified areas of the gamestate, nor to a proposal preventing itself
> > from
> > taking effect (its no-effect clause is generally interpreted as applying
> > only to the rest of the proposal).
>
> Two lazy questions about this text; I haven't really dived into the
> various versions of the text and am just hoping others have already
> figured it all out...
>
> I'm comparing this to the March 13, 2020 SLR, which is the last I see
> before Proposal 8354 was enacted. Here's that text:
>
> When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if
> the outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted,
> and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is
> set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it
> takes effect. 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. Clearly marked comments are considered
> to be removed from the proposal before it takes effect, unless
> otherwise stated by the proposal. If the proposal cannot make some
> such changes, this does not preclude the other changes from taking
> place.
>
> If there is no Agoran Decision to adopt a particular proposal that
> has an outcome of ADOPTED, that proposal CANNOT take effect, rules
> to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
> Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change; this
> does not apply to generally preventing changes to specified areas
> of the gamestate, nor to a proposal preventing itself from taking
> effect (its no- effect clause is generally interpreted as applying
> only to the rest of the proposal). Except insofar as the actions
> performed by a proposal happen one after another, rather than
> simultaneously, a proposal's effect is instantaneous. A proposal
> can neither delay nor extend its own effect. Once a propsal
> finishes taking effect, its power is set to 0.
>
> One thing your replacement text doesn't have is that the proposal CAN
> apply the changes that it specifies. ("...CAN and does, as part of its
> effect, ..."). Is that CAN important? Did P8354 somehow provide for
> it elsewhere when it (I think) revised R106 to not include it?
I think it's unnecessary. Saying that the proposal applies the changes
implies that it both CAN do so and does do so. I considered saying
that it "successfully applied" the changes, but that just feels
redundant?
> The current post-8354 text says a proposal "CAN override the effect of
> any rule which it is capable of amending by specifying that it does
> so". Do we still want that?
I think that was used, like, a grand total of once. My gut feeling is
that it's unnecessary.
-Aris
