Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset - December
On 12/29/19 10:30 PM, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > >> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET > You forgot to strip trailing spaces, so these again have that > format=flowed problem. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. Gah, apparently email is hard. I've (hopefully) just disabled the flowed header in Thunderbird, so I'll resend. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset - December
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET You forgot to strip trailing spaces, so these again have that format=flowed problem. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: income
On 12/29/19 10:26 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: I earn 5 coins for publishing the most recent Rulekeepor's weekly report. I earn 5 coins for publishing the most recent Rulekeepor's monthly report. Sorry about that going to OFF; force of habit, I suppose. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: precedence scam?
Both of my drafts used the same definition. Cobb’s version did switch to another one. Gaelan > On Dec 29, 2019, at 4:48 PM, omd via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 5:17 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: >> So, starting with a trivial case, I think it’s pretty clear that a player >> registering does not constitute a “change in the ruleset,” even though it >> affects the functioning of rules with regard to that person. My goal was >> word the rule such that it under the same case. However, an argument could >> be made that the change here is somehow more “fundamental” because it >> affects the relationship between rules themselves, and therefore is a rule >> change. > > I'd tend to agree that changing That One Rule would not be a "change > to the ruleset". Though I think the original definition of That One > Rule is slightly better, because it avoids a gamestate "change" > entirely, in favor of something that's more of a change in real-world > state (the act of announcing that something is The One).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: precedence scam?
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 5:17 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > So, starting with a trivial case, I think it’s pretty clear that a player > registering does not constitute a “change in the ruleset,” even though it > affects the functioning of rules with regard to that person. My goal was word > the rule such that it under the same case. However, an argument could be made > that the change here is somehow more “fundamental” because it affects the > relationship between rules themselves, and therefore is a rule change. I'd tend to agree that changing That One Rule would not be a "change to the ruleset". Though I think the original definition of That One Rule is slightly better, because it avoids a gamestate "change" entirely, in favor of something that's more of a change in real-world state (the act of announcing that something is The One).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: precedence scam?
So, starting with a trivial case, I think it’s pretty clear that a player
registering does not constitute a “change in the ruleset,” even though it
affects the functioning of rules with regard to that person. My goal was word
the rule such that it under the same case. However, an argument could be made
that the change here is somehow more “fundamental” because it affects the
relationship between rules themselves, and therefore is a rule change.
Gaelan
> On Dec 29, 2019, at 3:06 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/29/2019 1:51 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 12/29/19 4:39 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> That's the exact reason is why R1030 is written that way - R1030 prevents
>>> the rule from "getting into the ruleset" in the first place. When you
>>> say "precedence over all rules" it's a straightforward precedence claim
>>> of the sort that's blocked from taking effect, the bit of obfuscation
>>> over "That One Rule" notwithstanding.
>>>
>>> -G.
>>>
>> So, perhaps something like this would work?
>> {
>> This Rule takes precedence over That One Rule, provisions of That One Rule
>> notwithstanding. That One Rule defaults to Rule 101, but CAN be changed by
>> Gaelan by announcement.
>> If That One Rule is Rule 1030, this rule takes precedence over all rules.
>> Gaelan CAN award emself the patent title "The Powerless" by announcement.
>> }
>> This way, when enacted, it doesn't claim precedence over Rule 1030, so R1030
>> won't prevent it from being enacted.
>
> I agree that this case is more interesting and open to interpretation.
>
> My guess is the Rule would take effect, but R1030 couldn't become "That One
> Rule" (the announcement to that effect would fail), due to: "This applies to
> changes by the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form" and
> that one of the "other forms" includes causing a reference defined in the
> rule to start pointing to R1030.
>
> The reference would be less "direct", the question is would it be indirect
> enough? "Direct" isn't a term that's been interpreted very much in CFJs,
> at least as far as I can remember.
>
> Another thing to think about is that R1030 blocks "changes in the ruleset"
> which is broader than blocking "rule changes" (which are limited to R105
> definitions of rule changes). It would be interesting to know if "changes
> in the ruleset" includes "changes in interpretation of the ruleset".
>
> -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: precedence scam?
On 12/29/2019 1:51 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 12/29/19 4:39 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
That's the exact reason is why R1030 is written that way - R1030 prevents
the rule from "getting into the ruleset" in the first place. When you
say "precedence over all rules" it's a straightforward precedence claim
of the sort that's blocked from taking effect, the bit of obfuscation
over "That One Rule" notwithstanding.
-G.
So, perhaps something like this would work?
{
This Rule takes precedence over That One Rule, provisions of That One Rule
notwithstanding. That One Rule defaults to Rule 101, but CAN be changed by
Gaelan by announcement.
If That One Rule is Rule 1030, this rule takes precedence over all rules.
Gaelan CAN award emself the patent title "The Powerless" by announcement.
}
This way, when enacted, it doesn't claim precedence over Rule 1030, so R1030
won't prevent it from being enacted.
I agree that this case is more interesting and open to interpretation.
My guess is the Rule would take effect, but R1030 couldn't become "That One
Rule" (the announcement to that effect would fail), due to: "This applies to
changes by the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form" and
that one of the "other forms" includes causing a reference defined in the
rule to start pointing to R1030.
The reference would be less "direct", the question is would it be indirect
enough? "Direct" isn't a term that's been interpreted very much in CFJs,
at least as far as I can remember.
Another thing to think about is that R1030 blocks "changes in the ruleset"
which is broader than blocking "rule changes" (which are limited to R105
definitions of rule changes). It would be interesting to know if "changes
in the ruleset" includes "changes in interpretation of the ruleset".
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: precedence scam?
On 12/29/19 4:39 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
That's the exact reason is why R1030 is written that way - R1030 prevents
the rule from "getting into the ruleset" in the first place. When you
say "precedence over all rules" it's a straightforward precedence claim
of the sort that's blocked from taking effect, the bit of obfuscation
over "That One Rule" notwithstanding.
-G.
So, perhaps something like this would work?
{
This Rule takes precedence over That One Rule, provisions of That One
Rule notwithstanding. That One Rule defaults to Rule 101, but CAN be
changed by Gaelan by announcement.
If That One Rule is Rule 1030, this rule takes precedence over all rules.
Gaelan CAN award emself the patent title "The Powerless" by announcement.
}
This way, when enacted, it doesn't claim precedence over Rule 1030, so
R1030 won't prevent it from being enacted.
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: precedence scam?
The paragraph I’m attempting to exploit is this one (quoted from 1030/13): {
No change to the ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of determining
precedence. This applies to changes by the enactment or amendment
of a Rule, or of any other form. This Rule takes precedence over
any Rule that would permit such a change to the ruleset.
}
Once the rule’s gotten into the ruleset, I’d argue, there’s no reason to prefer
1030’s claim of precedence over mine (I believe there’s an old thesis making
that argument, and the quoted paragraph is presumably a response to that). Of
course, there’s no reason to prefer this claim of precedence either, so this is
probably a paradox at best.
Gaelan
> On Dec 29, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/29/2019 11:31 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
>> Create a power-0.1 rule titled "Nothing to see here, Rule 1030,” with the
>> following text: {
>> This rule takes precedence over all rules, including That One Rule, the
>> provisions of That One Rule notwithstanding. That One Rule is defined as the
>> rule that Gaelan has most recently declared, by announcement, to be That One
>> Rule.
>
> "Direct" != "Explicit"
>
> "This rule takes precedence over all rules" *directly* claims precedence
> over R1030 (as well as directly claiming precedence over all the others),
> even though it does not *explicitly* claim precedence over R1030.
> Therefore it triggers the R1030 protections.
>
> -G.
>
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: precedence scam?
On 12/29/2019 11:31 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
Create a power-0.1 rule titled "Nothing to see here, Rule 1030,” with the
following text: {
This rule takes precedence over all rules, including That One Rule, the
provisions of That One Rule notwithstanding. That One Rule is defined as the
rule that Gaelan has most recently declared, by announcement, to be That One
Rule.
"Direct" != "Explicit"
"This rule takes precedence over all rules" *directly* claims precedence
over R1030 (as well as directly claiming precedence over all the others),
even though it does not *explicitly* claim precedence over R1030.
Therefore it triggers the R1030 protections.
-G.
DIS: Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch
Aris wrote: I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): ~~~ Effective date: Dec 14 00:15:01 UTC 2019 At Dec 14 00:15:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and agora-business became discussion fora. ~~~ I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): ~~~ Effective date: Dec 28 01:45:01 UTC 2019 At Dec 28 01:45:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and agora-business became public fora. ~~~ Okay, so if this goes through, then I think the effects on the ADoP DB would be limited to: * All individual events during the above time period were ineffective. (I don't think any of them were sent to BAK.) * Registrar and Treasuror reports haven't been published since before the troubles. * Prime Minister election initiated on Nov 3 is still waiting for resolution (of failed-quorum). Dec 28 attempt to resolve, while outside the above time period, was ineffective due to stating wrong result. * Comptrollor is vacant.
