Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
It was before my time, but the motivation is that there's lots of things that we want (in a practical sense) to be changable by a "rule or proposal", so it makes sense to define a name for such things so you don't have to keep saying "X CAN be changed by a rule or proposal". It also makes sense to distinguish between temporary change agents (proposals that can only work once) versus Rules that can affect things continuously. So tying the definition to something (power) that turns on and off for proposals but is constant for Rules also makes sense. Secure-N is a relative latecomer, but once you have those other definitions, having shorthand for "can only be changed by (rule or proposal of power>N)" is also useful. I can't remember any non-scam entities that were given power other than rules or proposals, maybe there were some other legit uses I've forgotten about. So it might be less scammy to say "an instrument is either a Rule, or a Proposal during the time that the proposal is taking effect - no other things are instruments". Maybe we should... but part of the fun is (a) leaving stubs for legit gameplay - maybe someday there will be a legit reason to allow a Decree to work and (b) where's the fun in that, if we over-generalize, we can promote a nice variety of scams and discussions like this one. :P On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 11:10 AM Cuddle Beam wrote: > I'm curious about the history around this sort of things. Like, what > motivated making the concept of "Instruments" in the first place for Agora? > It seems like such a weird thing. > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:07 AM Madeline wrote: > > > At what point do we just power-4 "Persons CANNOT be Instruments"? > > > > On 2019-02-06 14:41, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > Actually that Security thing is a big hole, there's lots of stuff > that's > > > secured, and R1688 applies the method here: > > > > except as allowed by an Instrument > > > > > > If "allowed" is defined as something a person can do "naturally" (the > > > way we > > > treat, say, "agree"), then when the instrument is a natural person, e > > > could > > > just say "I allow, on an ongoing basis, changes to happen when I > perform > > > them by announcement" and the method is supplied. > > > > > > Also, R105 specifies that an instrument can make a rule change "as > > > part of > > > effect", though it would get pretty philosophical to figure out how a > > > person's "effect" is triggered (at the very least, R105 limits it to a > > > publicly-written process of at least 4 days). > > > > > > On 2/5/2019 6:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > >> It still matters what the rules say about the order of precedence, > > >> because > > >> the order of precedence is decided by the rules. If the rule defining > > >> the > > >> order of precedence was repealed, there wouldn't be an order of > > >> precedence, > > >> and power would have no effect in that regard. As it happens, the > > >> power of > > >> an instrument that isn’t a rule currently doesn’t have any effect > > >> outside > > >> secured things and changing entities with higher power. > > >> > > >> -Aris > > >> > > >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:59 PM D. Margaux > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it > > >>> matter > > >>> what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered > person > > >>> overrules them? > > >>> > > >>> I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is > > >>> willing > > >>> to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. > > >>> > > On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > > > I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation > > > wouldn’t be > > >>> a barrier anymore, though. > > > > I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything > > other > > >>> than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. > > > > Greetings, > > Ørjan. > > >>> > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
I'm curious about the history around this sort of things. Like, what motivated making the concept of "Instruments" in the first place for Agora? It seems like such a weird thing. On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 7:07 AM Madeline wrote: > At what point do we just power-4 "Persons CANNOT be Instruments"? > > On 2019-02-06 14:41, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Actually that Security thing is a big hole, there's lots of stuff that's > > secured, and R1688 applies the method here: > > > except as allowed by an Instrument > > > > If "allowed" is defined as something a person can do "naturally" (the > > way we > > treat, say, "agree"), then when the instrument is a natural person, e > > could > > just say "I allow, on an ongoing basis, changes to happen when I perform > > them by announcement" and the method is supplied. > > > > Also, R105 specifies that an instrument can make a rule change "as > > part of > > effect", though it would get pretty philosophical to figure out how a > > person's "effect" is triggered (at the very least, R105 limits it to a > > publicly-written process of at least 4 days). > > > > On 2/5/2019 6:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> It still matters what the rules say about the order of precedence, > >> because > >> the order of precedence is decided by the rules. If the rule defining > >> the > >> order of precedence was repealed, there wouldn't be an order of > >> precedence, > >> and power would have no effect in that regard. As it happens, the > >> power of > >> an instrument that isn’t a rule currently doesn’t have any effect > >> outside > >> secured things and changing entities with higher power. > >> > >> -Aris > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:59 PM D. Margaux > wrote: > >> > >>> But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it > >>> matter > >>> what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person > >>> overrules them? > >>> > >>> I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is > >>> willing > >>> to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. > >>> > On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen > wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation > > wouldn’t be > >>> a barrier anymore, though. > > I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything > other > >>> than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > >>> > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
On 2/5/2019 10:07 PM, Madeline wrote: At what point do we just power-4 "Persons CANNOT be Instruments"? This is a philosophical rules-reading puzzle mostly - I was wrong to call it a "security hole". If someone passes a power-3 rule that says "I am a power-3 instrument" then they have certain, odd powers we can argue about. But if the rule says instead "I CAN turn any published document into a power-3 instrument by announcement, and that document's changes are then applied to the game" then it works fine, and has been done in the past. So it's really just a wording debate, of how minimally you have to phrase a Dictatorship rule for it to work properly. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
At what point do we just power-4 "Persons CANNOT be Instruments"? On 2019-02-06 14:41, Kerim Aydin wrote: Actually that Security thing is a big hole, there's lots of stuff that's secured, and R1688 applies the method here: > except as allowed by an Instrument If "allowed" is defined as something a person can do "naturally" (the way we treat, say, "agree"), then when the instrument is a natural person, e could just say "I allow, on an ongoing basis, changes to happen when I perform them by announcement" and the method is supplied. Also, R105 specifies that an instrument can make a rule change "as part of effect", though it would get pretty philosophical to figure out how a person's "effect" is triggered (at the very least, R105 limits it to a publicly-written process of at least 4 days). On 2/5/2019 6:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: It still matters what the rules say about the order of precedence, because the order of precedence is decided by the rules. If the rule defining the order of precedence was repealed, there wouldn't be an order of precedence, and power would have no effect in that regard. As it happens, the power of an instrument that isn’t a rule currently doesn’t have any effect outside secured things and changing entities with higher power. -Aris On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:59 PM D. Margaux wrote: But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it matter what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person overrules them? I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is willing to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a barrier anymore, though. I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything other than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
Actually that Security thing is a big hole, there's lots of stuff that's secured, and R1688 applies the method here: > except as allowed by an Instrument If "allowed" is defined as something a person can do "naturally" (the way we treat, say, "agree"), then when the instrument is a natural person, e could just say "I allow, on an ongoing basis, changes to happen when I perform them by announcement" and the method is supplied. Also, R105 specifies that an instrument can make a rule change "as part of effect", though it would get pretty philosophical to figure out how a person's "effect" is triggered (at the very least, R105 limits it to a publicly-written process of at least 4 days). On 2/5/2019 6:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: It still matters what the rules say about the order of precedence, because the order of precedence is decided by the rules. If the rule defining the order of precedence was repealed, there wouldn't be an order of precedence, and power would have no effect in that regard. As it happens, the power of an instrument that isn’t a rule currently doesn’t have any effect outside secured things and changing entities with higher power. -Aris On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:59 PM D. Margaux wrote: But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it matter what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person overrules them? I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is willing to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a barrier anymore, though. I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything other than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
It still matters what the rules say about the order of precedence, because the order of precedence is decided by the rules. If the rule defining the order of precedence was repealed, there wouldn't be an order of precedence, and power would have no effect in that regard. As it happens, the power of an instrument that isn’t a rule currently doesn’t have any effect outside secured things and changing entities with higher power. -Aris On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:59 PM D. Margaux wrote: > But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it matter > what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person > overrules them? > > I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is willing > to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. > > > On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: > >> > >> I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be > a barrier anymore, though. > > > > I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything other > than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. > > > > Greetings, > > Ørjan. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
Isn't power a construct of the rules in its own right, though? It doesn't hold any value beyond what the rules actually give it. On 2019-02-06 12:59, D. Margaux wrote: But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it matter what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person overrules them? I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is willing to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a barrier anymore, though. I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything other than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it matter what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person overrules them? I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is willing to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. > On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: >> >> I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a >> barrier anymore, though. > > I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything other than > a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a barrier anymore, though. I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything other than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a
barrier anymore, though.
> On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Actually, we're in different territory now anyway than in past discussions,
> because of the change to R2125; it's now pretty explicit in requiring that
> methods for doing stuff, some method like 'by announcement' be in the rules.
> So it would be harder to argue that it worked than in the past. (I found
> the dictator rule I mentioned and it had "by announcement" details in it, so
> that wasn't relevant and probably wasn't the debate that ais523 brought up).
>
>> On 2/5/2019 4:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Uncertain, because there's no clear way for you to take actions that have
>> power, it might be like a blank rule with power-3, sure it's got power but
>> can it do anything with it?
>> Some of us powered ourselves up as the result of a scam (the patent title
>> First Violin and other orchestral entries on the Scroll were because we were
>> the first people that were "instruments"). Can't even remember the year so
>> I'll have to dig to see what text we used or if we got away without any
>> extra text by just saying we did stuff.
>>> On 2/5/2019 4:36 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>> Side note: would a rule with the text “Gaelan has power 3” be sufficient to
>>> establish a dictatorship?
>>>
>>> Gaelan
>>>
On Feb 5, 2019, at 4:13 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I withdraw my proposal The Duumvirate v.1.1, in order to make a minor
clarifying edit.
I submit (and if necessary pend) a proposal as follows:
///
Title: The Duumvirate v.1.2
AI: 3
Author: D. Margaux
Co-author: G.
Enact a power 3 rule entitled "The Duumvirate" with the following text:
{
The Duumvirate is an organization whose members are D. Margaux and G.
Each member of the Duumvirate is a "Dictator."
Either Dictator CAN by announcement cause this Rule to repeal itself.
No person can act on behalf of a Dictator (other than the Dictator acting
as emself).
A Decree is a document clearly labeled as such. Either Dictator CAN
proclaim a Decree with support from the other Dictator.
When a Decree is proclaimed, then:
(1) its power is set to 3;
(2) it takes effect by applying to the gamestate the changes
specified in the text of the Decree, to the greatest extent permitted by
the rules; and then,
(3) its power is set to 0.
}
///
>>>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
Actually, we're in different territory now anyway than in past discussions,
because of the change to R2125; it's now pretty explicit in requiring that
methods for doing stuff, some method like 'by announcement' be in the rules.
So it would be harder to argue that it worked than in the past. (I found
the dictator rule I mentioned and it had "by announcement" details in it, so
that wasn't relevant and probably wasn't the debate that ais523 brought up).
On 2/5/2019 4:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Uncertain, because there's no clear way for you to take actions that have
power, it might be like a blank rule with power-3, sure it's got power but
can it do anything with it?
Some of us powered ourselves up as the result of a scam (the patent title
First Violin and other orchestral entries on the Scroll were because we were
the first people that were "instruments"). Can't even remember the year so
I'll have to dig to see what text we used or if we got away without any
extra text by just saying we did stuff.
On 2/5/2019 4:36 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Side note: would a rule with the text “Gaelan has power 3” be sufficient
to establish a dictatorship?
Gaelan
On Feb 5, 2019, at 4:13 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I withdraw my proposal The Duumvirate v.1.1, in order to make a minor
clarifying edit.
I submit (and if necessary pend) a proposal as follows:
///
Title: The Duumvirate v.1.2
AI: 3
Author: D. Margaux
Co-author: G.
Enact a power 3 rule entitled "The Duumvirate" with the following text:
{
The Duumvirate is an organization whose members are D. Margaux and G.
Each member of the Duumvirate is a "Dictator."
Either Dictator CAN by announcement cause this Rule to repeal itself.
No person can act on behalf of a Dictator (other than the Dictator acting
as emself).
A Decree is a document clearly labeled as such. Either Dictator CAN
proclaim a Decree with support from the other Dictator.
When a Decree is proclaimed, then:
(1) its power is set to 3;
(2) it takes effect by applying to the gamestate the changes
specified in the text of the Decree, to the greatest extent permitted by
the rules; and then,
(3) its power is set to 0.
}
///
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
Uncertain, because there's no clear way for you to take actions that have
power, it might be like a blank rule with power-3, sure it's got power but
can it do anything with it?
Some of us powered ourselves up as the result of a scam (the patent title
First Violin and other orchestral entries on the Scroll were because we were
the first people that were "instruments"). Can't even remember the year so
I'll have to dig to see what text we used or if we got away without any
extra text by just saying we did stuff.
On 2/5/2019 4:36 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Side note: would a rule with the text “Gaelan has power 3” be sufficient to
establish a dictatorship?
Gaelan
On Feb 5, 2019, at 4:13 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I withdraw my proposal The Duumvirate v.1.1, in order to make a minor
clarifying edit.
I submit (and if necessary pend) a proposal as follows:
///
Title: The Duumvirate v.1.2
AI: 3
Author: D. Margaux
Co-author: G.
Enact a power 3 rule entitled "The Duumvirate" with the following text:
{
The Duumvirate is an organization whose members are D. Margaux and G. Each member of the
Duumvirate is a "Dictator."
Either Dictator CAN by announcement cause this Rule to repeal itself.
No person can act on behalf of a Dictator (other than the Dictator acting as
emself).
A Decree is a document clearly labeled as such. Either Dictator CAN proclaim a
Decree with support from the other Dictator.
When a Decree is proclaimed, then:
(1) its power is set to 3;
(2) it takes effect by applying to the gamestate the changes specified in
the text of the Decree, to the greatest extent permitted by the rules; and then,
(3) its power is set to 0.
}
///
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 16:36 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Side note: would a rule with the text “Gaelan has power 3” be > sufficient to establish a dictatorship? This was intensely debated in the past, but I forget what the end result was. (I vaguely remember it was something along the lines of "not automatically, but some anti-scam protections stop working against people with sufficiently high Power", but am unsure.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
Side note: would a rule with the text “Gaelan has power 3” be sufficient to
establish a dictatorship?
Gaelan
> On Feb 5, 2019, at 4:13 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I withdraw my proposal The Duumvirate v.1.1, in order to make a minor
> clarifying edit.
>
> I submit (and if necessary pend) a proposal as follows:
>
> ///
> Title: The Duumvirate v.1.2
> AI: 3
> Author: D. Margaux
> Co-author: G.
>
> Enact a power 3 rule entitled "The Duumvirate" with the following text:
>
> {
>
> The Duumvirate is an organization whose members are D. Margaux and G. Each
> member of the Duumvirate is a "Dictator."
>
> Either Dictator CAN by announcement cause this Rule to repeal itself.
>
> No person can act on behalf of a Dictator (other than the Dictator acting as
> emself).
>
> A Decree is a document clearly labeled as such. Either Dictator CAN proclaim
> a Decree with support from the other Dictator.
>
> When a Decree is proclaimed, then:
>
> (1) its power is set to 3;
>
> (2) it takes effect by applying to the gamestate the changes specified
> in the text of the Decree, to the greatest extent permitted by the rules; and
> then,
>
> (3) its power is set to 0.
>
> }
>
>
> ///
