Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3559 assigned to o

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 21, 2017, at 11:23 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I could write an Agency with that same thing + output, for example, something 
> like:
> 
> ---*---
> Any agent may take 1 shiny from Cuddlebeam and the following clause has no 
> effect.
> 
> Any agent may take 2 shiny from Cuddlebeam and the previous clause has no 
> effect.
> ---*—

An agency isn’t an Instrument or a Proposal. Both of those classes of document 
are “special” in rules-defined ways, and special by precedent. Paradoxical 
documents generally are actually quite well handled: they have no effect, even 
if the kind of document they are would otherwise have an effect. Instruments, 
however, have the capacity to govern*, via the framework laid out in rules 1688 
(“Power”) and 105 (“Rule Changes”).

This capacity is considerably broader than the capacity of an Agency to define 
the powers of Agents. By historical convention, _rules_ - the primary kind of 
governing instrument - may in fact be paradoxical, and the paradoxes are taken 
to be “real” in as far as the term is meaningful. It’s not much of a stretch, 
based on the above, to extend that kind of exceptionality to instruments 
generally.

-o

* Yes, I know that that’s not what rule 2141 (“Roles and Attributes of Rules”) 
says. Bear with me.


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3559 assigned to o

[Kerim Aydin]

There's a CFJ to the effect of "unless it's explicitly written in an Instrument 
of power,
loops and paradoxes are just thrown out altogether as being ambiguous as per 
needing
to specify actions clearly (R478).  If there's an explicit rule/instrument that 
sets it up
and takes precedence over other rules, it works."  (I remember Murphy writing 
the judgement
but as usual, can't remember any statement keywords).  It only really gets 
tricky if it 
has Power and thus has rules-level effects.

(of course this would be an old judgement and probably would be revisited).

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I could write an Agency with that same thing + output, for example, something 
> like:
> 
> ---*---
> Any agent may take 1 shiny from Cuddlebeam and the following clause has no 
> effect.
> 
> Any agent may take 2 shiny from Cuddlebeam and the previous clause has no 
> effect.
> ---*---
> 
> Then summon a CFJ for if someone can take 1 shiny or 2.
> 
> Pretty much a simulation of what would happen with such a proposal without 
> needing to inject it into the ruleset (I believe Agencies with output can be 
> used to do any kind of Agoran experiment, really. Stock up on them 
> precedents!)
> 
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>   Interesting question.
> 
>   I'd say it does have the potential to break things, but that it's a 
> known
>   feature.
> 
>   i.e. if we put something broken in a Rule via a proposal, then we'd have
>   to say "it's our fault, we shouldn't have voted for it."  It's really 
> the
>   same (only) protection against bad proposals.  In other words, it 
> doesn't
>   seem any more dangerous than rule changes of the same power?
> 
>   On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>   > On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>   >
>   > > Without addressing the question of whether a proposal can have 
> direct effects on other proposals without enacting a rule change (a 
> complicated question under rule 2140), it seems clear that a proposal can 
> have effects beyond
>   rule changes, and that those effects could include effects on the 
> proposal itself.
>   >
>   > I slept on this, and I’m concerned that this may have been a more 
> dangerous precedent than I originally considered. I’m going to let it stand 
> unless someone else feels I should reconsider, but it might be worth 
> contemplating what
>   the effects of an adopted proposal similar to
>   >
>   > -
>   > The clauses of this proposal take effect simultaneously, in one 
> indivisible step.
>   >
>   > The following clause has no effect.
>   >
>   > The previous clause has no effect.
>   > -
>   >
>   > would be.
>   >
>   > -o
>   >
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3559 assigned to o

[Cuddle Beam]

I could write an Agency with that same thing + output, for example,
something like:

---*---
Any agent may take 1 shiny from Cuddlebeam and the following clause has no
effect.

Any agent may take 2 shiny from Cuddlebeam and the previous clause has no
effect.
---*---

Then summon a CFJ for if someone can take 1 shiny or 2.

Pretty much a simulation of what would happen with such a proposal without
needing to inject it into the ruleset (I believe Agencies with output can
be used to do any kind of Agoran experiment, really. Stock up on them
precedents!)

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Interesting question.
>
> I'd say it does have the potential to break things, but that it's a known
> feature.
>
> i.e. if we put something broken in a Rule via a proposal, then we'd have
> to say "it's our fault, we shouldn't have voted for it."  It's really the
> same (only) protection against bad proposals.  In other words, it doesn't
> seem any more dangerous than rule changes of the same power?
>
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> > > Without addressing the question of whether a proposal can have direct
> effects on other proposals without enacting a rule change (a complicated
> question under rule 2140), it seems clear that a proposal can have effects
> beyond rule changes, and that those effects could include effects on the
> proposal itself.
> >
> > I slept on this, and I’m concerned that this may have been a more
> dangerous precedent than I originally considered. I’m going to let it stand
> unless someone else feels I should reconsider, but it might be worth
> contemplating what the effects of an adopted proposal similar to
> >
> > -
> > The clauses of this proposal take effect simultaneously, in one
> indivisible step.
> >
> > The following clause has no effect.
> >
> > The previous clause has no effect.
> > -
> >
> > would be.
> >
> > -o
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3559 assigned to o

[Kerim Aydin]

Interesting question.

I'd say it does have the potential to break things, but that it's a known
feature.

i.e. if we put something broken in a Rule via a proposal, then we'd have
to say "it's our fault, we shouldn't have voted for it."  It's really the
same (only) protection against bad proposals.  In other words, it doesn't
seem any more dangerous than rule changes of the same power?

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> > Without addressing the question of whether a proposal can have direct 
> > effects on other proposals without enacting a rule change (a complicated 
> > question under rule 2140), it seems clear that a proposal can have effects 
> > beyond rule changes, and that those effects could include effects on the 
> > proposal itself.
> 
> I slept on this, and I’m concerned that this may have been a more dangerous 
> precedent than I originally considered. I’m going to let it stand unless 
> someone else feels I should reconsider, but it might be worth contemplating 
> what the effects of an adopted proposal similar to
> 
> -
> The clauses of this proposal take effect simultaneously, in one indivisible 
> step.
> 
> The following clause has no effect.
> 
> The previous clause has no effect.
> -
> 
> would be.
> 
> -o
> 
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3559 assigned to o

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> Without addressing the question of whether a proposal can have direct effects 
> on other proposals without enacting a rule change (a complicated question 
> under rule 2140), it seems clear that a proposal can have effects beyond rule 
> changes, and that those effects could include effects on the proposal itself.

I slept on this, and I’m concerned that this may have been a more dangerous 
precedent than I originally considered. I’m going to let it stand unless 
someone else feels I should reconsider, but it might be worth contemplating 
what the effects of an adopted proposal similar to

-
The clauses of this proposal take effect simultaneously, in one indivisible 
step.

The following clause has no effect.

The previous clause has no effect.
-

would be.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP