Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
> My apologies for the delayed reply here, but this was intentional and > I would ask that everyone who voted against it for this reason > consider voting in favour. This is done to match up with the way that > proposals work: an AI=1 proposal requires a strict majority, but an > AI=2 proposal can be passed with 2 FOR and 1 AGAINST. This is also in > keeping with most interpretations of parliamentary procedure I have > seen: a "vote of two thirds" is passed at 2:1, not failed, for > instance. The previous wording for Agoran consent correctly required > that 1 Agoran consent have a majority in favour, but incorrectly > required that higher values also have an extra vote in favour. The > first condition that S <= O ensures that 1 Agoran consent is left > unchanged. > > In effect, there are two independent changes here: one is to allow the > initiator to count when evaluating support for all intents, and the > other is to change the Agoran consent definition to line up with the > way that supermajority votes normally work. I apologize for not making > this clearer in the proposal. > > Alexis Sounds good to me. Thanks for the explanation. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 02:46, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:45 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business > wrote: > > Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as follows: > > I feel like this makes more sense in a high-power rule so it doesn't > break with secured actions. > > The broad wording also makes me very nervous about scams. Admittedly, > after a cursory search, I can't find anything in the ruleset that > would be clearly scammable. But I did find this: > > A rule can also designate that a part of one public > message is considered a public message in its own right. > > Can any person, by Agoran Consent, cause a rule to designate that part > of a public message is considered a public message in its own right? > If not, where do the Rules "state the mechanism by which" a rule can > do so? Admittedly, the intended mechanism is clear, but it's not > explicitly mentioned in connection with this clause. Is it implicitly > "stated" as part of the sentence as a whole? Or perhaps some of the > wording in Rule 2141's first paragraph (e.g. "A rule's content takes > the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.") counts as "stating" a > mechanism? The latter sounds more plausible to me, and I think I'd > judge that it does, but it's still a close call. > > That said, being able to pull off a scam with Agoran Consent would not > be the end of the world either. What is the motivation behind letting persons cause non-person entities to perform actions? Also, what is the text "...they specify that an entity can perform that action even if no appropriate entity currently exists" supposed to do? Does that make it so that if the rules say "sprockets can award Coins" but no sprockets exist, then any player can, with Agoran consent, cause a (fictional) sprocket to award Coins anyway? If so, what's the point of that? - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 21:46, omd via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:45 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business > wrote: > > Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as > follows: > > I feel like this makes more sense in a high-power rule so it doesn't > break with secured actions. > In some ways, I think the opposite; at a lower power it's less likely to accidentally cause a secured action to be performable inadvertently, at least while we're testing it out. > The broad wording also makes me very nervous about scams. Admittedly, > after a cursory search, I can't find anything in the ruleset that > would be clearly scammable. But I did find this: > > A rule can also designate that a part of one public > message is considered a public message in its own right. > > Can any person, by Agoran Consent, cause a rule to designate that part > of a public message is considered a public message in its own right? > If not, where do the Rules "state the mechanism by which" a rule can > do so? Admittedly, the intended mechanism is clear, but it's not > explicitly mentioned in connection with this clause. Is it implicitly > "stated" as part of the sentence as a whole? Or perhaps some of the > wording in Rule 2141's first paragraph (e.g. "A rule's content takes > the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.") counts as "stating" a > mechanism? The latter sounds more plausible to me, and I think I'd > judge that it does, but it's still a close call. > > That said, being able to pull off a scam with Agoran Consent would not > be the end of the world either. > Yes, I think that making it Agoran consent makes it more difficult to scam. I had considered w/o objection, even, before deciding that consent was likely enough. For that specific case, I would interpret "designate" as being part of the textual effect of a rule, and therefore not typically an action. But I can certainly see some awkwardness between it. Certainly where the rules allow other rules to define something, that's not an action. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 19:21, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > A bit messy, no? Most deferences in rules actually do something > significant; if it doesn't, it's likely to make people go "why is that > in there?" > > -Aris > It's also future-proofing; it defers to future rules of a similar nature too.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:38 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 17:34, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 29, 2020, at 1:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Proposal: On Possibility (AI=1)
> > > {{{
> > > Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as
> > follows:
> > > {
> > > If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that a person CAN
> > > perform an action, but do not state the mechanism by which e can do so, e
> > > CAN perform it by announcement.
> > >
> > > If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that a non-person
> > > entity CAN perform an action, but do state the mechanism by which e can
> > do
> > > so, any person CAN cause that entity to perform that action with Agoran
> > > Consent.
> >
> > AFIACT, this exists even if the rule already has a mechanism for causing
> > that entity to do things. For example, we have provisions that allow
> > contracts and instruments to do things—this would make those things
> > performable with consent (in practice, those things are largely too high
> > powered, but the bug could still exists).
> >
>
> Oops, that's a typo. It should be "not".
>
> I withdraw the proposal "On Possibility" and submit one that is identical
> except that, in the second paragraph, the "but do state" is replaced by
> "but do not state".
>
> >
> > > If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that an action CAN
> > be
> > > performed but do not specify any entities as being capable of performing
> > > that action, any person CAN perform that action with Agoran Consent.
> > >
> > > For the purposes of this Rule, the Rules provide a mechanism for an
> > action
> > > to be performed even if they specify a mechanism with a precondition
> > which
> > > is not currently met, and they specify that an entity can perform that
> > > action even if no appropriate entity currently exists. This Rule defers
> > to
> > > all Rules which permit actions to be performed by specific mechanisms.
> >
> > Oh, I hadn’t noticed this clause. But I’m not sure if it works. I’d argue
> > that providing an alternate mechanism to do something isn’t a conflict
> > between the rules, so I’m not sure this deference does anything.
> >
>
> I agree, but I'd rather have the clause in there in case I'm wrong.
A bit messy, no? Most deferences in rules actually do something
significant; if it doesn't, it's likely to make people go "why is that
in there?"
-Aris
