Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
To be safe, I’d go with “the gamestate, excluding the rules” and then ratify a recent SLR. -Aris On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 7:29 PM James Cook wrote: > Does that mean I should update the proposal to say "The gamestate, > except for the rules, is changed ..." to make sure the proposal can > take effect? Or maybe, to be safe: > > The gamestate is changed to be as close as to the following updated > gamestate as this proposal is able to make it. The updated gamestate > is what the gamestate would have been if ...(existing text)... as a > convergence. For example, if this proposal is able to change > everything except the rules, than everything except the rules is > changed as described. / Rule 2124 is amende ... (existing text) > > Or do the rules already imply that the proposal's change will take > effect to the maximum extent within the proposal's ability? > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 08:22, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > Yes, the "gamestate" includes the rules, and I initially assumed the > same thing as you. But ais523 pointed out a few days ago that rule 105/19 > says > > > > A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its > > full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear > > specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at > > least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise > > take effect. > > > > which overrides the passage in rule 106/40 that says > > > > 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. > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:47 AM, James Cook < > jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > > > > > I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset > > > > > > > are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why > there > > > > are so many protections preventing them being done by accident). > > > > > > My proposal says "The gamestate is changed...". I assumed that > > > includes the rules, making re-cleaning unnecessary. Is there precedent > > > for what "gamestate" means? > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Does that mean I should update the proposal to say "The gamestate, except for the rules, is changed ..." to make sure the proposal can take effect? Or maybe, to be safe: The gamestate is changed to be as close as to the following updated gamestate as this proposal is able to make it. The updated gamestate is what the gamestate would have been if ...(existing text)... as a convergence. For example, if this proposal is able to change everything except the rules, than everything except the rules is changed as described. / Rule 2124 is amende ... (existing text) Or do the rules already imply that the proposal's change will take effect to the maximum extent within the proposal's ability? On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 08:22, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yes, the "gamestate" includes the rules, and I initially assumed the same > thing as you. But ais523 pointed out a few days ago that rule 105/19 says > > A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its > full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear > specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at > least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise > take effect. > > which overrides the passage in rule 106/40 that says > > 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. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:47 AM, James Cook > wrote: > > > > I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset > > > > > are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there > > > are so many protections preventing them being done by accident). > > > > My proposal says "The gamestate is changed...". I assumed that > > includes the rules, making re-cleaning unnecessary. Is there precedent > > for what "gamestate" means? >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
I'm not sure I'm completely following. Does CFJ 1104 support the conclusion that players must hop on one foot? Is the idea that Rule A fails to defer to Rule B because Rule 1030 overrules that attempt at deference? On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 18:32, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > This one's been in the FLR forever: > CFJ 1104 (called 20 Aug 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference >clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not >prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how >the Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise. > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104 > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > It *is* super-interesting in a constitutional delegation-of-powers > > sense! I would say that R1030 does actually turn this into a > > conflict. But it's not a conflict between Rule A and Rule B. It's a > > conflict between Rule A and Rule 1030, which says that Power overrides > > the deference clause in Rule A (and R1030, at power 3,2, would win of > > course). But I'm far from certain of this interpretation. > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:03 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power. Power is > > > > the first test applied (R1030). > > > > > > That is so interesting. It’s counterintuitive to me that it would work > > > that way. To take an example, here are two hypothetical rules: > > > > > > Rule A (power 2): “Except as provided by other rules, a player MUST hop > > > on one foot.” > > > > > > Rule B (power 1): “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player MAY > > > elect to skip or gallop instead of hopping on one foot.” > > > > > > Under your reading, Rule A overpowers Rule B, so that players must hop on > > > one foot; right? > > > > > > Rule 1030 governs precedence in case of “conflicts,” but there is no > > > conflict here. Rule A expressly allows itself to be overruled by other > > > rules, and Rule B is such a rule. So giving full effect to Rule A > > > requires that we also give effect to Rule A, because Rule A tells us to. > > > > > > That would not render the rule powers meaningless, because, e.g., a power > > > 1 non-rule instrument still could not overrule Rule A.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 02:47, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 02:40 +, James Cook wrote: > > That seems to change the meaning of R1698 so that it's no longer > > talking about actual changes to the rules. Is there any precedent > > about whether that kind of thing (a lower-power rule changing a > > higher-power rule by defining a term) works? > > Plenty, because it's pretty much core to escalator scams. In fact, they > were made explicit in the rules, to attempt to generally protect > against scams like that. > > The last paragraph of rule 2140 is the "generic" protection against > that sort of thing. The second paragraph of rule 217 directly prevents > definitions in lower-powered rules overruling common-sense meanings of > terms in higher-power rules (it allows them to clarify in cases of > inclarity, but that's about it). Ah, thanks, I think I read those but forgot about them.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 02:40 +, James Cook wrote: > That seems to change the meaning of R1698 so that it's no longer > talking about actual changes to the rules. Is there any precedent > about whether that kind of thing (a lower-power rule changing a > higher-power rule by defining a term) works? Plenty, because it's pretty much core to escalator scams. In fact, they were made explicit in the rules, to attempt to generally protect against scams like that. The last paragraph of rule 2140 is the "generic" protection against that sort of thing. The second paragraph of rule 217 directly prevents definitions in lower-powered rules overruling common-sense meanings of terms in higher-power rules (it allows them to clarify in cases of inclarity, but that's about it). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 08:56, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Maybe you’re right. Either way, you could do any number of > not-quite-ossification things (for instance, proposals authored by anyone > other than you can only amend if the author published the full text of the > proposal 3.5+ weeks ago). The "and/or" in R1698 does seem kind of unclear. What the rule also included a definition: To make an "arbitrary rule change" is defined to mean earning 5 coins. That seems to change the meaning of R1698 so that it's no longer talking about actual changes to the rules. Is there any precedent about whether that kind of thing (a lower-power rule changing a higher-power rule by defining a term) works?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy
Hm, that's a good point about capitalization. I'm not really familiar enough with game custom to say. Your idea about raising a real-life banner has got me thinking... Raising a banner is a regulated action (R2125), so even if we assume capitalization doesn't matter, and that you did raise a banner in real life, Rule 2125 would say that you didn't raise a banner, because you didn't do it using "the methods explicitly specified in the Rules". I feel like my understanding is a bit lacking, though. R2125 + R2152 tell us that attempting to raise a banner by a method outside the rules is "unsuccessful". But it feels a bit similar to the rules claiming that I don't exist, or that faster-than-light travel is possible, or that ducks can't fly. When R2438 says "This causes that person to win the game.", what tells us us that "This" refers "Raising a Banner in a way the rules deem to be successful", rather than just "raising a banner" in a literal sense? Is it because Raising a Banner is capitalized and/or a term of art? Is it because it's game custom to interpret the rules this way? Or is there another reason? On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 07:32, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > On a side-note, if capitalization no longer denotes terms of art and should > be interpreted literally, I got to go look for a real-life banner to raise > some time in the future... > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 08:20, Cuddle Beam wrote: ... > > I argue that Agora is written in an Agora-dialect English. And in that, > > capitalization does denote terms of art.
Re: DIS: Re: CFJ 3719
> Here are my initial proto-judgement, but I am definitely open to being > persuaded otherwise: > > * * * > > Caller's arguement depends on the idea that to "Declare Apathy" means > the same thing as to "announce" or "publish apathy." I don't > necessarily agree with that, and so I would judge FALSE. > > The word declaration has several meanings. In the context of Rule > 2465, I think "to Declare Apathy" is a kind of a speech-act: it is a > statement that causes a particular social fact to come into existence > (in this case, it creates a victory by Apathy). It has a similar form > as when a wedding officiant says "I declare you man and wife," or when > a monarch says "I declare war on [country]," or when the chair of a > legislative body says "I declare that the legislative session is > adjourned." > > In each of these examples, the declaration works only if certain > preconditions are met. The wedding officiant must be vested with some > legal, religious, or other kind of authority to perform the marriage, > and the bride and groom need to express consent and have a valid > marriage license--otherwise the declaration is void. The monarch must > be vested with the power to declare war, and may lack authority to do > so in a constitutional monarchy. The chair must actually be > recognized as legitimately presiding over the legislative body, and > certain rules typically must be followed before an adjournment can be > declared. > > If authority is lacking, the declaration is void. So if I were to say > (or announce or publish), "I declare Donald Trump and Hillary Rodham > Clinton to be married," or "I declare war on BlogNomic on behalf of > Agora," or "I declare the U.S. Congress to be adjourned," we would all > immediately understand why the declarations are void. > > So too here. Under certain circumstances, Rule 2465 vests a player > with authority to declare a particular social fact to come into > existence--a victory by Apathy. The key question is under what > circumstances does that Rule create authority to Declare Apathy? The > Rule says that "[a] player CAN Declare Apathy without objection, > specifying a set of players." In my view, "without objection" must be > read as a precondition that must be satisfied before a player is > vested with authority to Declare Apathy. > > So what does "without objection" mean? Well, Rule 1728 says that "a > rule that purports to allow a person to perform an action [without > objection] thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement" > provided certain conditions are met. Here, those conditions are > plainly not met (and not merely because dependent intents are > currently temporarily broken). So, I think the declaration sadly must > fail (which is regrettable because a TRUE judgement would also give me > a win by Apathy from December 2018). That's great reasoning, thanks. Taking those examples into account, I agree that it's a stretch to say that I declared apathy (or "apathy") simply by announcing or publishing it.
Re: DIS: AI learning to play "nomic" (with NEAT)
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 09:50, Cuddle Beam wrote: > For a good while now I've wanted to figure out a way to have little > machine-learning bots play nomic and learn and improve at the game to see > what kind of emergent strategies they develop. Problem is, real nomic is > real fucking complicated lmao. > > So, I figured I could try to simplify it somehow. Also, there's a lot of > premade neural network code out there which look real cool and it makes all > of this less tedious lol. I had in mind to use NEAT (NeuroEvolution of > Augmenting Topologies). > > Anyways, instead of trying to make the little robot players try to compete > at a game of nomic that resembles code or something like Nomyx was, I'd > simplify it to a sort of grid-based Pachinko (via Unity for its physics), > let's call it Pachinkonomic. Also, in order to get generations and such, > I'd make the Pachinkonomic "dynastic" and make the game end once a player > has "won". > > Balls would fall from the top (randomly maybe?) and the players would each > have a cup at the bottom. Once they have enough balls to win, the game > restarts, new population, yadda yadda (I'd probably need to have a lot of > "tables" of play too where the players can sit at for a game of > Pachinkonomic to have big enough populations... Although my computer is a > bit of a wuss and having so many physics going on at the same time might > give it a stroke so I might simply the Pachinko to something else lmao, > we'll see). > > Each turn, a player would propose a change to the pins in the grid, either > removing or adding any amount of pins, in pantomime of how we can change > pretty much anything in a nomic as well. The players "see" this proposal > (input neurons on each point of the grid) and vote if to pass it or not. > And right after, pachinko balls fall and all players get a payout. > > To avoid possible bias based on where on the bottom of the pachinko board > the player's cup is, the pachinko board would be cylindrical. Like that, > all players are in pretty much the same initial conditions, except for what > kind of player they got next to them, but they're blind to that anyways. > > The balls emulate the super common notion that there's "wealth" in a game > nomic, and with enough wealth, you win. > > So yeah. A bunch of robotic players trying to control a common Pachinko > board (that emulates a real fucking simple "nomic") to get the highest > payoff. Also, Pachinko is easily very visual which is real nice too. > > https://i.imgur.com/xvNVbS8.png > > What do you think? Sounds fun! It reminds me of a paper I saw a while ago about simulating a nomic. I think it might have been this one: http://digitalarchive.maastrichtuniversity.nl/fedora/get/guid:592508d3-40ef-4899-ac5b-f02fb975ec5d/ASSET1 I didn't read it very carefully. It looks like the simulation only allowed proposals about changing voting thresholds or stopping the game. So, much less fun than your idea.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
This one's been in the FLR forever: CFJ 1104 (called 20 Aug 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104 On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > It *is* super-interesting in a constitutional delegation-of-powers > sense! I would say that R1030 does actually turn this into a > conflict. But it's not a conflict between Rule A and Rule B. It's a > conflict between Rule A and Rule 1030, which says that Power overrides > the deference clause in Rule A (and R1030, at power 3,2, would win of > course). But I'm far from certain of this interpretation. > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:03 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power. Power is > > > the first test applied (R1030). > > > > That is so interesting. It’s counterintuitive to me that it would work that > > way. To take an example, here are two hypothetical rules: > > > > Rule A (power 2): “Except as provided by other rules, a player MUST hop on > > one foot.” > > > > Rule B (power 1): “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player MAY > > elect to skip or gallop instead of hopping on one foot.” > > > > Under your reading, Rule A overpowers Rule B, so that players must hop on > > one foot; right? > > > > Rule 1030 governs precedence in case of “conflicts,” but there is no > > conflict here. Rule A expressly allows itself to be overruled by other > > rules, and Rule B is such a rule. So giving full effect to Rule A requires > > that we also give effect to Rule A, because Rule A tells us to. > > > > That would not render the rule powers meaningless, because, e.g., a power 1 > > non-rule instrument still could not overrule Rule A. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:03 AM D. Margaux wrote: > >> Rule A (power 2): “Except as provided by other rules, a player MUST hop on >> one foot.” >> >> Rule B (power 1): “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player MAY elect >> to skip or gallop instead of hopping on one foot.” > > It's a > conflict between Rule A and Rule 1030, which says that Power overrides > the deference clause in Rule A (and R1030, at power 3,2, would win of > course). It seems to me that R1030 has a very idiosyncratic idea of what a “conflict” is, if my hypothetical Rules A and B “conflict.” But I agree that’s the best reading of the rule. Which makes me wonder whether this creates any unexpected buggy effects when rules of different power interact with one another, and don’t “directly” conflict but do perhaps conflict in the R1030 sense. But it makes my head hurt to try to figure out what the specific bugs would be...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
It *is* super-interesting in a constitutional delegation-of-powers sense! I would say that R1030 does actually turn this into a conflict. But it's not a conflict between Rule A and Rule B. It's a conflict between Rule A and Rule 1030, which says that Power overrides the deference clause in Rule A (and R1030, at power 3,2, would win of course). But I'm far from certain of this interpretation. On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:03 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > > > > On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power. Power is > > the first test applied (R1030). > > That is so interesting. It’s counterintuitive to me that it would work that > way. To take an example, here are two hypothetical rules: > > Rule A (power 2): “Except as provided by other rules, a player MUST hop on > one foot.” > > Rule B (power 1): “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player MAY elect > to skip or gallop instead of hopping on one foot.” > > Under your reading, Rule A overpowers Rule B, so that players must hop on one > foot; right? > > Rule 1030 governs precedence in case of “conflicts,” but there is no conflict > here. Rule A expressly allows itself to be overruled by other rules, and Rule > B is such a rule. So giving full effect to Rule A requires that we also give > effect to Rule A, because Rule A tells us to. > > That would not render the rule powers meaningless, because, e.g., a power 1 > non-rule instrument still could not overrule Rule A. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power. Power is > the first test applied (R1030). That is so interesting. It’s counterintuitive to me that it would work that way. To take an example, here are two hypothetical rules: Rule A (power 2): “Except as provided by other rules, a player MUST hop on one foot.” Rule B (power 1): “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player MAY elect to skip or gallop instead of hopping on one foot.” Under your reading, Rule A overpowers Rule B, so that players must hop on one foot; right? Rule 1030 governs precedence in case of “conflicts,” but there is no conflict here. Rule A expressly allows itself to be overruled by other rules, and Rule B is such a rule. So giving full effect to Rule A requires that we also give effect to Rule A, because Rule A tells us to. That would not render the rule powers meaningless, because, e.g., a power 1 non-rule instrument still could not overrule Rule A.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:57 AM Gaelan Steele wrote: > >> The proposed rule is a prohibition on a certain type of change. Because > >> 106 says “except as prohibited by other rules”, it defers to this rule. Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power. Power is the first test applied (R1030). > >> The second quoted clause fails to prevent this, because the rule > >> "generally [prevents] changes to specified areas of the gamestate.” > >> > >> 1698/5 "Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable > >> combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be > >> made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period.” > >> > >> Note the “and/or.” Nothing here prevents arbitrary proposals from being > >> adopted—it just prevents them from changing the rules upon doing so. > >> Therefore, Agora isn’t ossified. > >> > >> I retract the above proposal. > >> > >> Gaelan > >> > >>> On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:21 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >>> > >>> Yes, the "gamestate" includes the rules, and I initially assumed the same > >>> thing as you. But ais523 pointed out a few days ago that rule 105/19 says > >>> > >>> A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its > >>> full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear > >>> specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at > >>> least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise > >>> take effect. > >>> > >>> which overrides the passage in rule 106/40 that says > >>> > >>>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. > >>> > >>> -twg > >>> > >>> > >>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > >>> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:47 AM, James Cook > >>> wrote: > >>> > > I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset > > are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there > > are so many protections preventing them being done by accident). > My proposal says "The gamestate is changed...". I assumed that > includes the rules, making re-cleaning unnecessary. Is there precedent > for what "gamestate" means? > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Maybe you’re right. Either way, you could do any number of
not-quite-ossification things (for instance, proposals authored by anyone other
than you can only amend if the author published the full text of the proposal
3.5+ weeks ago).
Gaelan
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:52 AM, Madeline wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it just be ossified because arbitrary rule changes cannot be made?
> The "and/or" does function as an or!
>
> On 2019-02-21 19:37, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> I create the AI-1 proposal “Minor bug fix” with the following text:
>>
>> {
>> Create the power-1 rule “Don’t mind me” with the following text:
>> {The rules CANNOT change by any mechanism.}
>> }
>>
>> Why that works (at power 1):
>>
>> 106/40: "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"
>> 106/40: "Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change; this
>> does not apply to generally preventing changes to specified areas of the
>> gamestate”
>>
>> The proposed rule is a prohibition on a certain type of change. Because 106
>> says “except as prohibited by other rules”, it defers to this rule.
>> The second quoted clause fails to prevent this, because the rule "generally
>> [prevents] changes to specified areas of the gamestate.”
>>
>> 1698/5 "Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination
>> of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or
>> arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period.”
>>
>> Note the “and/or.” Nothing here prevents arbitrary proposals from being
>> adopted—it just prevents them from changing the rules upon doing so.
>> Therefore, Agora isn’t ossified.
>>
>> I retract the above proposal.
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>>> On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:21 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, the "gamestate" includes the rules, and I initially assumed the same
>>> thing as you. But ais523 pointed out a few days ago that rule 105/19 says
>>>
>>> A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
>>> full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
>>> specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
>>> least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
>>> take effect.
>>>
>>> which overrides the passage in rule 106/40 that says
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>> -twg
>>>
>>>
>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>>> On Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:47 AM, James Cook
>>> wrote:
>>>
> I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset
> are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there
> are so many protections preventing them being done by accident).
My proposal says "The gamestate is changed...". I assumed that
includes the rules, making re-cleaning unnecessary. Is there precedent
for what "gamestate" means?
>
>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Wouldn't it just be ossified because arbitrary rule changes cannot be
made? The "and/or" does function as an or!
On 2019-02-21 19:37, Gaelan Steele wrote:
I create the AI-1 proposal “Minor bug fix” with the following text:
{
Create the power-1 rule “Don’t mind me” with the following text:
{The rules CANNOT change by any mechanism.}
}
Why that works (at power 1):
106/40: "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"
106/40: "Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change; this
does not apply to generally preventing changes to specified areas of the gamestate”
The proposed rule is a prohibition on a certain type of change. Because 106
says “except as prohibited by other rules”, it defers to this rule.
The second quoted clause fails to prevent this, because the rule "generally
[prevents] changes to specified areas of the gamestate.”
1698/5 "Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of
actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary
proposals to be adopted within a four-week period.”
Note the “and/or.” Nothing here prevents arbitrary proposals from being
adopted—it just prevents them from changing the rules upon doing so. Therefore,
Agora isn’t ossified.
I retract the above proposal.
Gaelan
On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:21 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Yes, the "gamestate" includes the rules, and I initially assumed the same thing
as you. But ais523 pointed out a few days ago that rule 105/19 says
A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
take effect.
which overrides the passage in rule 106/40 that says
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.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:47 AM, James Cook
wrote:
I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset
are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there
are so many protections preventing them being done by accident).
My proposal says "The gamestate is changed...". I assumed that
includes the rules, making re-cleaning unnecessary. Is there precedent
for what "gamestate" means?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Yes, the "gamestate" includes the rules, and I initially assumed the same thing as you. But ais523 pointed out a few days ago that rule 105/19 says A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise take effect. which overrides the passage in rule 106/40 that says 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. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:47 AM, James Cook wrote: > > I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset > > > are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there > > are so many protections preventing them being done by accident). > > My proposal says "The gamestate is changed...". I assumed that > includes the rules, making re-cleaning unnecessary. Is there precedent > for what "gamestate" means?
