On 2022-04-11 12:25, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 4/11/2022 11:05 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 2022-04-11 10:49, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On 4/11/2022 10:40 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > >>> No, it's not reasonable to expect new players to read through decades of > >>> judgements. However, that doesn't eliminate the fact that the precedent > >>> exists. Generally relevant precedents will be brought up by people aware > >>> of them when needed. > >> > >> I mean, it *might* be reasonable for a new player to think "I'm putting in > >> a high-powered proposal that claims to freeze agora, directly trying to > >> loophole something that the rules explicitly say is a High Crime and > >> shouldn't be done - maybe there's reasons I shouldn't do that." > >> > >> -G. > > > > It might. And there may. There are also reasons to do it -- such as to > > expose such loophole. > > Well sure - I respect the civil disobedience inherent in performing an > action to prove what's wrong with the law, but that generally involves > technically committing the crime. My point is more general - that while a > new player might not be expected to *know* the cfjs surrounding a matter, > it's not unreasonable for em to expect that tinkering around the edges of > a crime might get em nabbed, even if the nabbing is on a technicality. > > > In any case, my action was to create a proposal > > (with a very high AI), which by definition can only be implemented with > > much support. I'd say it was nearly impossible for that action to ossify > > the game. > > One thing that surprised me is that, so far, nobody's really said "it can > NEVER be an attempt at ossification because I can read right in the rules > that ossification would be blocked". In other words, we already *know* > it's impossible unless the attempt would explicitly removes R1698 first, > and that sort of impossibility hasn't been a defense. It would be > interesting to see if that comes up more in your new cfjs. > > -G. >
That actually didn't seem like a good defense for me. The rule explicitly states that commiting the crime is to perform an action that “would” cause Agora to be Ossified. The only possible interpretation for that tense is that it *won't* -- and the only possible reason for that, at this level of generality, is R1698. So the definition of the crime arguably excludes that argument. It could be read “An action is forbidden if it would, but for Rule 1698, upon its successful occurence cause Agora to be ossified or to cease to exits.” -- juan
