Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Missing obvious kind of extreme case:
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains the word “Walruses”.
Power 1: Walruses are a currency tracked by the Zoologist. [...]
}
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Some thought experiments:
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains the text “Players can’t Declare Quanging.”
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging.
}
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
describes a circumstance in which players can not do so, and that circumstance
applies.
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains text prohibiting doing so.
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
prohibits doing so.
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}
Gaelan
On Feb 24, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 2/24/2019 10:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
The ultimate point is that the CFJ doesn’t consider the differencesbetween >
the situation where ONE rule claims priority/deference to the other and
the other is silent, versus when BOTH rules give INCONSISTENT
priority/deference answers, versus when both rules give CONSISTENT
priority/deference (in which case no conflict because the rules agree, and
therefore no R1030).
I wholly agree, and that's by design. The first clause of R1030 makes it
clear that rules simply cannot defer or prefer to higher/lower powers - it's
very purposeful security. This is why it's important to treat clauses like
"except as prohibited" as signaling conflicts to be resolved via R1030,
rather than as "lack of conflict". Otherwise, we're permitting rules to
delegate things to lower-powered rules contrary to R1030.
There's an entirely-independent protection worth considering, in R2140 -
even if a higher-powered rule defers to a lower powered-one, if the lower-
powered one then makes use of that deference to "set or modify a substantive
aspect" of the higher-powered rule, which is further defined as "any"
aspect, it may be blocked.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
I mean, in practice that just means that voting against a proposal would be
something you do very not-lightly. We’d end up with a lot of negotiation and
politicking. In practice, splits would be fairly rare.
Gaelan
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 3:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> This reminds me of a concept I ran across while reading an essay about Nomic
> one time called Fork World, where the guiding principle of play is "no
> coercion". In Fork World, the group of players who vote against each rule
> change and the group of players who vote for are sent to their own,
> non-interacting universes where their rules hold power. While it is an
> interesting concept, the author points out that after N decisions, the
> playerbase would be split into 2^n different groups. In Agora's case, this
> would be a number over two thousand digits long and I'm pretty sure we've
> never had that many players.
>
> The essay in question is here: http://shirky.com/writings/nomic.html
>
> On 2/22/19 11:45 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:22 AM D. Margaux wrote:
On Feb 22, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora
anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly papered over some
platonic truth that made everything freeze.
>>>
>>> That point of view makes me think of the “sovereign citizens” who believe
>>> that their view of the law is
>>> somehow platonically right, and that it means they don’t have to pay taxes
>>> or whatever.
>> Never made that connection! Given that, unlike countries, Agora is an
>> entirely voluntary organization, my personal worry about Agora is not
>> a "full ossification that almost everyone agrees happened" nor "1 or 2
>> people saying we were playing wrong" but a situation where two
>> similarly-sized camps disagree with an aspect, and end up trying to
>> run two entirely separate games (separate reports, etc.) on the same
>> list while arguing that theirs is the One True Way. The oldest
>> existential crisis from Nomic World ("Lindrum World") was a crisis of
>> this type, and it was only ended when both camps agreed to a method to
>> converge the gamestate while never agreeing on which was the "true
>> path" they took to get there, with lots of arguments and rage-quits
>> along the way.
>
> --
> Trigon
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Some thought experiments:
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains the text “Players can’t Declare Quanging.”
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging.
}
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
describes a circumstance in which players can not do so, and that circumstance
applies.
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains text prohibiting doing so.
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
prohibits doing so.
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}
Gaelan
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 2/24/2019 10:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > The ultimate point is that the CFJ doesn’t consider the differencesbetween
> > > the situation where ONE rule claims priority/deference to the other and
> > the other is silent, versus when BOTH rules give INCONSISTENT
> > priority/deference answers, versus when both rules give CONSISTENT
> > priority/deference (in which case no conflict because the rules agree, and
> > therefore no R1030).
>
> I wholly agree, and that's by design. The first clause of R1030 makes it
> clear that rules simply cannot defer or prefer to higher/lower powers - it's
> very purposeful security. This is why it's important to treat clauses like
> "except as prohibited" as signaling conflicts to be resolved via R1030,
> rather than as "lack of conflict". Otherwise, we're permitting rules to
> delegate things to lower-powered rules contrary to R1030.
>
> There's an entirely-independent protection worth considering, in R2140 -
> even if a higher-powered rule defers to a lower powered-one, if the lower-
> powered one then makes use of that deference to "set or modify a substantive
> aspect" of the higher-powered rule, which is further defined as "any"
> aspect, it may be blocked.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is what convinced me: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104 Those arguments explicitly consider your logic and reject it, finding instead that the rules-languages of R1030 defines deference clauses /conditionals like these as indicating "conflicts" for the purposes of R1030. I see nothing about conditionals in that judgement. My opinion at this point is that although the rules seem to do so, it doesn't really make much sense to treat deference as something special - any rule naturally has the ability to limit its _own_ interpretation, so why legislate it further at all? It's completely different from precedence, which attempts to limit a _different_ rule. Greetings, Ørjan.
Fwd: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Murphy's thread reply, meant to go to discussion I think. Forwarded Message Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast! Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:02:17 -0800 From: Edward Murphy To: Kerim Aydin G. wrote: On 2/24/2019 10:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > The ultimate point is that the CFJ doesn’t consider the differencesbetween > the situation where ONE rule claims priority/deference to the other and > the other is silent, versus when BOTH rules give INCONSISTENT > priority/deference answers, versus when both rules give CONSISTENT > priority/deference (in which case no conflict because the rules agree, and > therefore no R1030). I wholly agree, and that's by design. The first clause of R1030 makes it clear that rules simply cannot defer or prefer to higher/lower powers - it's very purposeful security. This is why it's important to treat clauses like "except as prohibited" as signaling conflicts to be resolved via R1030, rather than as "lack of conflict". Otherwise, we're permitting rules to delegate things to lower-powered rules contrary to R1030. I disagree with part of this. R1030 does prevent a higher power rule from deferring to a lower power rule, but that doesn't extend to "except as prohibited" because they're not actually equivalent. One is "I'm limiting conflict by limiting my claimed scope", the other is "I'm allowing conflict but also stating 'I defer'", which either (a) implicitly allows R1030 to decide what "I defer" actually does, or (b) implicitly conflicts with R1030's decision (which R1030 wins by its own clauses, and the intentional lack of anything explicitly and effectively contradicting R1030). Just as a low-power rule claiming "I take precedence over high-powered rules" conflicts with R1030 and loses that conflict. Note that limiting one's scope need not say "except". Consider a low-power rule saying "Players CAN X" and a high power rule saying "Officers CANNOT X"; these don't conflict on the subject of whether a non-Officer Player CAN X. There's an entirely-independent protection worth considering, in R2140 - even if a higher-powered rule defers to a lower powered-one, if the lower- powered one then makes use of that deference to "set or modify a substantive aspect" of the higher-powered rule, which is further defined as "any" aspect, it may be blocked. If (a hypothetically amended) R1030 was satisfied that HPR effectively deferred to LPR, then arguably HPR is setting/modifying the aspect by saying "whatever LPR says goes".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
This reminds me of a concept I ran across while reading an essay about
Nomic one time called Fork World, where the guiding principle of play is
"no coercion". In Fork World, the group of players who vote against each
rule change and the group of players who vote for are sent to their own,
non-interacting universes where their rules hold power. While it is an
interesting concept, the author points out that after N decisions, the
playerbase would be split into 2^n different groups. In Agora's case,
this would be a number over two thousand digits long and I'm pretty sure
we've never had that many players.
The essay in question is here: http://shirky.com/writings/nomic.html
On 2/22/19 11:45 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:22 AM D. Margaux wrote:
On Feb 22, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora
anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly papered over some
platonic truth that made everything freeze.
That point of view makes me think of the “sovereign citizens” who believe that
their view of the law is
somehow platonically right, and that it means they don’t have to pay taxes or
whatever.
Never made that connection! Given that, unlike countries, Agora is an
entirely voluntary organization, my personal worry about Agora is not
a "full ossification that almost everyone agrees happened" nor "1 or 2
people saying we were playing wrong" but a situation where two
similarly-sized camps disagree with an aspect, and end up trying to
run two entirely separate games (separate reports, etc.) on the same
list while arguing that theirs is the One True Way. The oldest
existential crisis from Nomic World ("Lindrum World") was a crisis of
this type, and it was only ended when both camps agreed to a method to
converge the gamestate while never agreeing on which was the "true
path" they took to get there, with lots of arguments and rage-quits
along the way.
--
Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> There's an entirely-independent protection worth considering, in R2140 -
> even if a higher-powered rule defers to a lower powered-one, if the lower-
> powered one then makes use of that deference to "set or modify a substantive
> aspect" of the higher-powered rule, which is further defined as "any"
> aspect, it may be blocked.
Yes, this changes everything, actually. When {XX}, for X with power
greater than Y, then the conflict isn’t between X and Y; it’s between X and Y
on the one side, and R2140 on the other.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On 2/24/2019 10:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > The ultimate point is that the CFJ doesn’t consider the differencesbetween > the situation where ONE rule claims priority/deference to the other and > the other is silent, versus when BOTH rules give INCONSISTENT > priority/deference answers, versus when both rules give CONSISTENT > priority/deference (in which case no conflict because the rules agree, and > therefore no R1030). I wholly agree, and that's by design. The first clause of R1030 makes it clear that rules simply cannot defer or prefer to higher/lower powers - it's very purposeful security. This is why it's important to treat clauses like "except as prohibited" as signaling conflicts to be resolved via R1030, rather than as "lack of conflict". Otherwise, we're permitting rules to delegate things to lower-powered rules contrary to R1030. There's an entirely-independent protection worth considering, in R2140 - even if a higher-powered rule defers to a lower powered-one, if the lower- powered one then makes use of that deference to "set or modify a substantive aspect" of the higher-powered rule, which is further defined as "any" aspect, it may be blocked.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> What's missing from this analysis, in my view, is that it's not purely A>B,
> it's actually "A>B about fact P". So if two rules say different things
> about P, the two rules can wholly agree, via an explicit
> precedence/deference handshake, on whether A or B wins the conflict, but
> "fact P" is still the "conflict".
Apologies, I’m not sure I understand how this changes the analysis. If
{X(p)>Y(p) & Y(p) So I would characterize the {X > Y on P & Y< X on P} situation as "both
> rules agree on how the conflict about P is to be resolved". I think that
> interpretation is foreseen and supported under this R1030 clause:
> - If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
>itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes
>precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such
>provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict, unless they
>lead to contradictions between each other;
I think this clause comes into play when there are 2 rules of the _same_ power,
where one has a deference/priority clause and one does not. In that case, you
give effect to the deference/priority clause.
And you can broaden this to a situation of 2+ equal power rules, where fewer
than all of them have deference/priority clauses.
> That clause foresees that there may be 2+ clauses that form a handshake ("at
> least one of the Rules"), and still define that handshake as "provisions
> used to resolve the conflict [over P]", saying that if the 2+ clauses agree
> with each other, you've resolved the conflict over P (rather than defining
> away the conflict over P as being "not a conflict"), and additionally
> stating that if those conflict-resolution clauses themselves conflict, you
> don't apply this step.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from >> a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is that >> your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030 >> "deference" as something that never happens. > > None come to mind. But I also can’t think of a meaning of “conflict” that > would apply to two rules that expressly accommodate one another. Also, on my reading, I think that the deference relationship provision of R1030 is to coordinate between rules of the SAME power, not rules of differing power. So that’s not surplusage. There’s just no example to point to for rules of differing power.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On 2/24/2019 9:47 AM, D. Margaux wrote:>
> The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't
> think that CFJ adequately considers why.
>
> For rules A and B, let:
>
> “A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
> “A < B” mean that A defers to B; and
> “A = B” mean that A is silent about its deference or priority relationship
> to B.
>
> The mirror image rule posits that {X > Y & Y = X} is logically equal to {Y
> X & X = Y}, and that both situations represent conflicts in the rules. I
> agree with that.
>
> BUT in my view, {X > Y & Y< X} is different. *That* example is *not* a
> conflict. In that example, both rules agree about the outcome. I just
> don’t see how that can be characterized as a conflict.
What's missing from this analysis, in my view, is that it's not purely A>B,
it's actually "A>B about fact P". So if two rules say different things
about P, the two rules can wholly agree, via an explicit
precedence/deference handshake, on whether A or B wins the conflict, but
"fact P" is still the "conflict".
So I would characterize the {X > Y on P & Y< X on P} situation as "both
rules agree on how the conflict about P is to be resolved". I think that
interpretation is foreseen and supported under this R1030 clause:
- If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes
precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such
provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict, unless they
lead to contradictions between each other;
That clause foresees that there may be 2+ clauses that form a handshake ("at
least one of the Rules"), and still define that handshake as "provisions
used to resolve the conflict [over P]", saying that if the 2+ clauses agree
with each other, you've resolved the conflict over P (rather than defining
away the conflict over P as being "not a conflict"), and additionally
stating that if those conflict-resolution clauses themselves conflict, you
don't apply this step.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:47 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't think
> that CFJ adequately considers why.
>
> For rules A and B, let:
>
> “A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
> “A < B” mean that A defers to B; and
> “A = B” mean that A is silent about its deference or priority relationship to
> B.
>
> The mirror image rule posits that {X > Y & Y = X} is logically equal to {Y <
> X & X = Y}, and that both situations represent conflicts in the rules. I
> agree with that.
>
> BUT in my view, {X > Y & Y< X} is different. *That* example is *not* a
> conflict. In that example, both rules agree about the outcome. I just don’t
> see how that can be characterized as a conflict.
And to draw out the conclusions of my view—let X be higher powered than Y.
In that case:
{X = Y & Y = X} — conflict; give precedence to X by R1030 step 1 (give effect
to higher powered rule)
{X > Y & Y = X} — conflict; give precedence to X by step 1
{Y < X & X = Y} — conflict; give precedence to X by step 1
{X > Y & Y > X} — conflict; give precedence to X by step 1
{X < Y & Y > X} — no conflict; give precedence to Y by agreement of both rules
and do not apply R1030
{X > Y & Y < X} — no conflict; give precedence to X by agreement of both rules
and do not apply R1030
{X < Y & Y < X} — conflict; give precedence to Y by step 1 (because X tells us
to do that?); or give precedence to X because of step 1
{X < Y & Y = X} — conflict; give precedence to Y by step 1 (because X tells us
to do that?); or give precedence to X because of step 1
The ultimate point is that the CFJ doesn’t consider the differences between the
situation where ONE rule claims priority/deference to the other and the other
is silent, versus when BOTH rules give INCONSISTENT priority/deference answers,
versus when both rules give CONSISTENT priority/deference (in which case no
conflict because the rules agree, and therefore no R1030).
>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/24/2019 8:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference
from a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is
that your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030
"deference" as something that never happens.
>>>
>>> None come to mind. But I also can’t think of a meaning of “conflict” that
>>> would apply to two rules that expressly accommodate one another.
>>
>> Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was
>> on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is
>> what convinced me: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104
>>
>> Those arguments explicitly consider your logic and reject it, finding
>> instead that the rules-languages of R1030 defines deference clauses
>> /conditionals like these as indicating "conflicts" for the purposes of
>> R1030.
>>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't think
that CFJ adequately considers why.
For rules A and B, let:
“A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
“A < B” mean that A defers to B; and
“A = B” mean that A is silent about its deference or priority relationship to B.
The mirror image rule posits that {X > Y & Y = X} is logically equal to {Y < X
& X = Y}, and that both situations represent conflicts in the rules. I agree
with that.
BUT in my view, {X > Y & Y< X} is different. *That* example is *not* a
conflict. In that example, both rules agree about the outcome. I just don’t see
how that can be characterized as a conflict.
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 2/24/2019 8:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference
> >> from a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is
> >> that your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030
> >> "deference" as something that never happens.
> >
> > None come to mind. But I also can’t think of a meaning of “conflict” that
> > would apply to two rules that expressly accommodate one another.
>
> Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was
> on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is
> what convinced me: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104
>
> Those arguments explicitly consider your logic and reject it, finding
> instead that the rules-languages of R1030 defines deference clauses
> /conditionals like these as indicating "conflicts" for the purposes of
> R1030.
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On 2/24/2019 8:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote: >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference >> from a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is >> that your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030 >> "deference" as something that never happens. > > None come to mind. But I also can’t think of a meaning of “conflict” that > would apply to two rules that expressly accommodate one another. Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is what convinced me: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104 Those arguments explicitly consider your logic and reject it, finding instead that the rules-languages of R1030 defines deference clauses /conditionals like these as indicating "conflicts" for the purposes of R1030.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from > a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is that > your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030 > "deference" as something that never happens. None come to mind. But I also can’t think of a meaning of “conflict” that would apply to two rules that expressly accommodate one another.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from a high power to a low power from working? The problem I'm having is that your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030 "deference" as something that never happens. On 2/24/2019 5:54 AM, D. Margaux wrote: On Feb 23, 2019, at 9:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 2/22/2019 8:06 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: I think the "Except as prohibited by other rules" is a condition, and _possibly_ also a deference (it depends on exactly what deference means). I don't think there should be a substantive difference in interpretation between "Except as prohibited by other rules" and, in R2466, "except that it defers to any rule that imposes limitations" (given that "imposing limitations" is more or less the same as "prohibiting" in this context). I think Ø has the more straightforward reading here. The first test applied in R1030 is not power; it first asks whether there is a conflict _at all_. And it seems to me that there is no conflict when the higher powered rule expressly conditions its effect on a lower powered rule. To put more starkly, what about the two pairs of rules below: *** Pair 1 Rule A1 (power 2): “A player who violates a Rule is guilty of a crime except when a power 1 or higher rule excuses eir conduct.” Rule B1 (power 1): “A player’s conduct is excused if e says e is really, very sorry.” *** Pair 2 Rule A2 (power 2): “A player who violates a Rule is guilty of a crime except as provided by other Rules of power 1 or higher.” Rule B2 (power 1): “Rule A2 notwithstanding, a player is not guilty of a crime if e says e is really, very sorry.” *** Shouldn’t both pairs lead to the same outcomes? And shouldn’t Rule A1/A2 withhold its effect if Rule B1/B2 is satisfied? I think under G’s reading, Rule A1/A2 would always trump Rule B1/B2, and Rule B would be ineffective. But that strikes me as very very weird, and inconsistent with R1030, because there’s no conflict within either of these pairs of rules.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 23, 2019, at 9:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> On 2/22/2019 8:06 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> I think the "Except as prohibited by other rules" is a condition, and >> _possibly_ also a deference (it depends on exactly what deference means). > > I don't think there should be a substantive difference in interpretation > between "Except as prohibited by other rules" and, in R2466, "except that it > defers to any rule that imposes limitations" (given that "imposing > limitations" is more or less the same as "prohibiting" in this context). I think Ø has the more straightforward reading here. The first test applied in R1030 is not power; it first asks whether there is a conflict _at all_. And it seems to me that there is no conflict when the higher powered rule expressly conditions its effect on a lower powered rule. To put more starkly, what about the two pairs of rules below: *** Pair 1 Rule A1 (power 2): “A player who violates a Rule is guilty of a crime except when a power 1 or higher rule excuses eir conduct.” Rule B1 (power 1): “A player’s conduct is excused if e says e is really, very sorry.” *** Pair 2 Rule A2 (power 2): “A player who violates a Rule is guilty of a crime except as provided by other Rules of power 1 or higher.” Rule B2 (power 1): “Rule A2 notwithstanding, a player is not guilty of a crime if e says e is really, very sorry.” *** Shouldn’t both pairs lead to the same outcomes? And shouldn’t Rule A1/A2 withhold its effect if Rule B1/B2 is satisfied? I think under G’s reading, Rule A1/A2 would always trump Rule B1/B2, and Rule B would be ineffective. But that strikes me as very very weird, and inconsistent with R1030, because there’s no conflict within either of these pairs of rules.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On 2/22/2019 8:06 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: I think the "Except as prohibited by other rules" is a condition, and _possibly_ also a deference (it depends on exactly what deference means). I don't think there should be a substantive difference in interpretation between "Except as prohibited by other rules" and, in R2466, "except that it defers to any rule that imposes limitations" (given that "imposing limitations" is more or less the same as "prohibiting" in this context).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: 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). I think the "Except as prohibited by other rules" is a condition, and _possibly_ also a deference (it depends on exactly what deference means). But because it's a condition rather than just something like "This Rule defers to blah blah blah", it also naturally prevents a conflict from arising, and therefore the fact that it's a deference shouldn't matter. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:22 AM D. Margaux > wrote: > > > On Feb 22, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora > > > anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly papered over > > > some > > > platonic truth that made everything freeze. > > > > That point of view makes me think of the “sovereign citizens” who > > believe that their view of the law is > > somehow platonically right, and that it means they don’t have to > > pay taxes or whatever. > > Never made that connection! Given that, unlike countries, Agora is > an > entirely voluntary organization, my personal worry about Agora is not > a "full ossification that almost everyone agrees happened" nor "1 or > 2 people saying we were playing wrong" but a situation where two > similarly-sized camps disagree with an aspect, and end up trying to > run two entirely separate games (separate reports, etc.) on the same > list while arguing that theirs is the One True Way. This might be an awkward situation, but both camps would see it as undesirable, and thus I suspect there would be an intentional attempt to converge. We've done this before, even with interpretations of the rules that most players rejected (e.g. Wooble's theory that converting registration into a switch deregistered everyone; I think most people disagreed with that theory, but we took steps to converge the gamestate in the case it was correct, IIRC involving a temporary forum that would only be public in the Woobleverse, and performing the convergence actions there). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> That doesn’t mean pure logic is unimportant; but it does mean that logic “works” only to the extent it can persuade the relevant legal actors. I agree with that entirely. Perspectivism and shit. It's why we have CFJs and stuff, people disagree all the time. On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 7:50 PM D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Feb 22, 2019, at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Given that, unlike countries, Agora is an > > entirely voluntary organization, my personal worry about Agora is not > > a "full ossification that almost everyone agrees happened" nor "1 or 2 > > people saying we were playing wrong" but a situation where two > > similarly-sized camps disagree with an aspect, and end up trying to > > run two entirely separate games (separate reports, etc.) on the same > > list while arguing that theirs is the One True Way. > > Wow! This actually sounds kind of fun. It’s like a nomic civil war! > > Not saying that we should actually try to have that happen though...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:22 AM D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora
> > anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly papered over some
> > platonic truth that made everything freeze.
>
> That point of view makes me think of the “sovereign citizens” who believe
> that their view of the law is
> somehow platonically right, and that it means they don’t have to pay taxes or
> whatever.
Never made that connection! Given that, unlike countries, Agora is an
entirely voluntary organization, my personal worry about Agora is not
a "full ossification that almost everyone agrees happened" nor "1 or 2
people saying we were playing wrong" but a situation where two
similarly-sized camps disagree with an aspect, and end up trying to
run two entirely separate games (separate reports, etc.) on the same
list while arguing that theirs is the One True Way. The oldest
existential crisis from Nomic World ("Lindrum World") was a crisis of
this type, and it was only ended when both camps agreed to a method to
converge the gamestate while never agreeing on which was the "true
path" they took to get there, with lots of arguments and rage-quits
along the way.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 22, 2019, at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Given that, unlike countries, Agora is an > entirely voluntary organization, my personal worry about Agora is not > a "full ossification that almost everyone agrees happened" nor "1 or 2 > people saying we were playing wrong" but a situation where two > similarly-sized camps disagree with an aspect, and end up trying to > run two entirely separate games (separate reports, etc.) on the same > list while arguing that theirs is the One True Way. Wow! This actually sounds kind of fun. It’s like a nomic civil war! Not saying that we should actually try to have that happen though...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 22, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora > anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly papered over some > platonic truth that made everything freeze. That point of view makes me think of the “sovereign citizens” who believe that their view of the law is somehow platonically right, and that it means they don’t have to pay taxes or whatever. It’s based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what law means; it’s a fundamentally social institution, and so the law really /is/ what the relevant legal actors believe it to be. That doesn’t mean pure logic is unimportant; but it does mean that logic “works” only to the extent it can persuade the relevant legal actors. Seems similar to nomic in that respect. The actual game “rules” are, in a sense, what the players believe them to be, using whatever interpretive tools are more or less convincing to them, within a certain overall structure of decisionmaking (e.g. proposals, CFJs, etc.).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:34 AM Cuddle Beam wrote: > >> (It's instructive to note what happened to B Nomic; it was also rather > >> long-running in terms of gameplay, but when the players noticed that it > >> had been ossified for years, it just died altogether; there were never > >> enough players interested in a revival.) It wasn't just that there "weren't enough players" interested. Nomic can be played with a very small number of players. Part of it was, on the few occasions that someone tried to re-start, there was direct vocal opposition from persons on the mailing list, saying "B-nomic is frozen in amber, we like it that way, regardless of whether you call it a reboot or continuation, don't try to restart play on this mailing list." So there's an active defense of its frozen state being played out via control of the medium (at least there was a couple years ago).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:31 AM Cuddle Beam wrote: > IMO the game has already been “ossified” for a while (or > miscalculated/unacknowledged by the consensus so far) because I’m convinced > that all actions are regulated. Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly papered over some platonic truth that made everything freeze. At least one instance of this sentiment that I remember (from Kelly for old-timers, though I forget the details) predates the ossification and the current Regulated Action rules, so that ossification rule was never created in One True Original Agora (tm) anyway. :P
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
the border of what regulated actions are, are its limit* On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 15:31, Cuddle Beam wrote: > IMO the game has already been “ossified” for a while (or > miscalculated/unacknowledged by the consensus so far) because I’m convinced > that all actions are regulated. > > (by ad absurdiam: > > Regulated actions are actions that are limited by the rules. > > Unregulated actions are all actions that aren’t regulated. > > If we have unregulated actions, the border of what regulated actions are > its limit, ergo unregulated actions are limited by something rule-defined > and therefore limited by the rules. So they’d have to be regulated. It cant > be both regulated and unregulated.) > > But, yeah. Even if I’m right (which I believe I am, but I might not be), > the game is more of a social activity rather than real software. For > example, the frequent “oh shiiit” moments where we have to do retroactive > changes and fix the ruleset to what we believed it was. > > As a mental experiment, assuming that we “just accept” the consensus’ > interpretation as Agora’s true reality, a solution to ensure Agora’s > longevity could be to add not very sane players that believe that, no > matter what the Ruleset’s text is, Agora can’t be Ossified. :P > > On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 11:29, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < > ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > >> On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:24 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> > To be honest I never really understood the problem with ossification >> > - surely if the game accidentally ends we can just start a "new one" >> > with a similar ruleset and gamestate, minimally modified to deossify >> > it? >> >> Many players care about Agora having been a continuous game that's been >> running for a really long length of time. Letting it die and restarting >> it would violate that. >> >> (It's instructive to note what happened to B Nomic; it was also rather >> long-running in terms of gameplay, but when the players noticed that it >> had been ossified for years, it just died altogether; there were never >> enough players interested in a revival.) >> >> -- >> ais523 >> >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
IMO the game has already been “ossified” for a while (or miscalculated/unacknowledged by the consensus so far) because I’m convinced that all actions are regulated. (by ad absurdiam: Regulated actions are actions that are limited by the rules. Unregulated actions are all actions that aren’t regulated. If we have unregulated actions, the border of what regulated actions are its limit, ergo unregulated actions are limited by something rule-defined and therefore limited by the rules. So they’d have to be regulated. It cant be both regulated and unregulated.) But, yeah. Even if I’m right (which I believe I am, but I might not be), the game is more of a social activity rather than real software. For example, the frequent “oh shiiit” moments where we have to do retroactive changes and fix the ruleset to what we believed it was. As a mental experiment, assuming that we “just accept” the consensus’ interpretation as Agora’s true reality, a solution to ensure Agora’s longevity could be to add not very sane players that believe that, no matter what the Ruleset’s text is, Agora can’t be Ossified. :P On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 11:29, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:24 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > To be honest I never really understood the problem with ossification > > - surely if the game accidentally ends we can just start a "new one" > > with a similar ruleset and gamestate, minimally modified to deossify > > it? > > Many players care about Agora having been a continuous game that's been > running for a really long length of time. Letting it die and restarting > it would violate that. > > (It's instructive to note what happened to B Nomic; it was also rather > long-running in terms of gameplay, but when the players noticed that it > had been ossified for years, it just died altogether; there were never > enough players interested in a revival.) > > -- > ais523 > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 10:24 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > To be honest I never really understood the problem with ossification > - surely if the game accidentally ends we can just start a "new one" > with a similar ruleset and gamestate, minimally modified to deossify > it? Many players care about Agora having been a continuous game that's been running for a really long length of time. Letting it die and restarting it would violate that. (It's instructive to note what happened to B Nomic; it was also rather long-running in terms of gameplay, but when the players noticed that it had been ossified for years, it just died altogether; there were never enough players interested in a revival.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
To be honest I never really understood the problem with ossification - surely
if the game accidentally ends we can just start a "new one" with a similar
ruleset and gamestate, minimally modified to deossify it?
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 8:56 AM, 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).
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:52 AM, Madeline j...@iinet.net.au 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 m...@timon.red 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!
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: 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?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> 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!
Already on my radar! -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 1:40 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 2/18/2019 5:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > This is such a mess lol. > > Patent title suggestion for everyone involved in the mess: > "Badge of the Best Intents". > > H. Assessor, when the dust has settled I'd also propose that Falsifian is a > good candidate for our first MacGyver award (with this proposal, I seriously > feel like we're watching em choose which of the red and blue wires to cut to > stop the game from exploding, as we yell advice at em in the background).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Someone has to ask the inevitable question: to what extent should cleaning self-ratify? What if the clause that is to be cleaned shouldn't even exist? The reality is that some elements of rules are lost when applying rule changes. Is it fair to say that when a clause mistakenly left in the ruleset is cleaned, the entire text of that rule is then ratified? There's a definite Rulekeepor scam in self-ratifying cleanings, and trying to mitigate this scammability will be difficult. On 2/18/19 10:34 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal results self-ratify. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make cleanings self-ratifying for the future. Greetings, Ørjan. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal results self-ratify. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make cleanings self-ratifying for the future. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
It’s a pretty intents situation. Sorry. Gaelan > On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > This is such a mess lol. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On 2/18/2019 5:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: This is such a mess lol. Patent title suggestion for everyone involved in the mess: "Badge of the Best Intents". H. Assessor, when the dust has settled I'd also propose that Falsifian is a good candidate for our first MacGyver award (with this proposal, I seriously feel like we're watching em choose which of the red and blue wires to cut to stop the game from exploding, as we yell advice at em in the background).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 5:22 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 20:18 -0500, D. Margaux wrote: > > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" < > ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > Just to make sure you're aware: this can't change the Rules > > > (penultimate paragraph of R105), just the rest of the gamestate. > > > > > > This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in > > > which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry > > > the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent > > > actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal > > > results self-ratify. > > > > Maybe we can just ratify the Ruleset with the cleanings in them? This is > such a mess lol. > > 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). > > -- > ais523 > We’re due for a ruleset ratification anyway, may as well fix the problems at the same time. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 20:18 -0500, D. Margaux wrote: > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" > > wrote: > > > > Just to make sure you're aware: this can't change the Rules > > (penultimate paragraph of R105), just the rest of the gamestate. > > > > This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in > > which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry > > the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent > > actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal > > results self-ratify. > > Maybe we can just ratify the Ruleset with the cleanings in them? This is such > a mess lol. 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). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" > wrote: > > Just to make sure you're aware: this can't change the Rules > (penultimate paragraph of R105), just the rest of the gamestate. > > This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in > which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry > the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent > actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal > results self-ratify. Maybe we can just ratify the Ruleset with the cleanings in them? This is such a mess lol.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> Thank you for all this work you've put in to fixing this! I would give you > some karma, but I've already used my Notice of Honour for the week, and it's > only Monday so I want to save Corona's in case something truly astonishing > happens later on. It's my pleasure. I'm certainly getting what I signed up for! I'm grateful for all the help.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Oh, I was thinking that the designation of a change as a convergence is itself a(nother) change. In any case, since this phrasing of the retroactivity clause doesn't rewrite the history of rule changes, I don't think it matters much either way. But I think "to the extent allowed by the rules" works fine, yes. Thank you for all this work you've put in to fixing this! I would give you some karma, but I've already used my Notice of Honour for the week, and it's only Monday so I want to save Corona's in case something truly astonishing happens later on. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:22 PM, James Cook wrote: > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:15, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook jc...@cs.berkeley.edu > > wrote: > > > > > Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in > > > accordance with the rules" in R214. > > > > I think this part of R106 accounts for that: > > > > 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. > > > > > > The same thing also happened in Proposal 8129, with nobody complaining, > > though I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it worked. > > How exactly does that apply? Are you saying that because the proposal > CAN apply the change it specified, and that it specified a change > designated as a convergence, it did in fact apply a change designated > as a convergence? I feel a bit uncertain; maybe the proposal fails to > designate its own specified change as a convergence (because the rules > don't explicitly allow a proposal to do that), but does apply the > change. > > Anyway, is the text "To the extent allowed by the rules" harmless at least? > > James
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:15, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook > wrote: > > Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in > > accordance with the rules" in R214. > > I think this part of R106 accounts for that: > > 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. > > The same thing also happened in Proposal 8129, with nobody complaining, > though I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it worked. How exactly does that apply? Are you saying that because the proposal CAN apply the change it specified, and that it specified a change designated as a convergence, it did in fact apply a change designated as a convergence? I feel a bit uncertain; maybe the proposal fails to designate its own specified change as a convergence (because the rules don't explicitly allow a proposal to do that), but does apply the change. Anyway, is the text "To the extent allowed by the rules" harmless at least? James
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
I am tempted to suggest that we insert something that says: “notwithstanding the foregoing, Agora is never satisfied with an intent to activate the Protocol, which is of no force or effect whatsoever.” > On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:05 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in > accordance with the rules" in R214. > > Is there anything wrong with D. Margaux's latest suggestion? I like > the fact that it doesn't try to retroactively change the rule's > history. (Though the retroactive rule change might be harmless, based > on G's research and my hope that nothing requires the Rulekeepor to > change the history or amendment number in the FLR.) > > Current draft, based on D. Margaux's latest + a note about convergence: > > > > The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the > following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was > Satisfied with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, > rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. To the extent > allowed by the rules, this change is designated as a convergence. > > Rule 2124 is amended by replacing its text with the following: > > A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible > entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. > "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an > intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly > posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of > that intent. > > The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform > an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by > the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the > previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is > not eligible to support it. > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action > unless at least one of the following is true: > > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there > are at least N Objectors to that intent. > > 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are > fewer than than N Supporters of that intent. > > 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the > number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N > times the number of Objectors to the intent. > > The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and > an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within > the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent. > > The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent > if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. > > A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent > before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same > type of response.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook wrote: > Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in > accordance with the rules" in R214. I think this part of R106 accounts for that: 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. The same thing also happened in Proposal 8129, with nobody complaining, though I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it worked. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in accordance with the rules" in R214. Is there anything wrong with D. Margaux's latest suggestion? I like the fact that it doesn't try to retroactively change the rule's history. (Though the retroactive rule change might be harmless, based on G's research and my hope that nothing requires the Rulekeepor to change the history or amendment number in the FLR.) Current draft, based on D. Margaux's latest + a note about convergence: The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was Satisfied with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. To the extent allowed by the rules, this change is designated as a convergence. Rule 2124 is amended by replacing its text with the following: A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent. The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is not eligible to support it. Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there are at least N Objectors to that intent. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are fewer than than N Supporters of that intent. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N times the number of Objectors to the intent. The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent. The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same type of response.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
I would say that the reading of the proposal in question would imply an override of all the amendments since 7815. I haven't been following this thread so I don't know what a better solution would be. On 2/18/19 9:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote: The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this proposal as part of the gamestate.) Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone) comment how this will be recorded in the FLR? Will we lose amendment numbers? I wouldn't want to lose any historical annotations if we "set the gamestate" so that they didn't happen. (given that they were important to figuring this out just now!) And are there any side issues like this unclear enough to run against the "any ambiguity" standards of R105? -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
An alternative is: "Change the gamestate [including the ruleset] to what it would have been if the below amendment had taken effect immediately after Proposal 7815, and if no further changes had been made to Rule 2124 since. Designate this change as a convergence." I believe this would allow the Rulekeepor to present a convenient legal fiction in the FLR, provided e also recorded the fact that a convergence occurred. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 4:34 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > To address G’s concern, what if the proposal were to say something like this: > > The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the > following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was Satisfied > with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, rather than the text > of what Rule 2124 was at that time. > > Rule 2124 is amended as follows: [amended text] > > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote: > > > > > On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote: > > > The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect > > > immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been > > > made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now > > > as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this > > > proposal as part of the gamestate.) > > > > Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone) comment how this will be recorded in the FLR? > > Will we lose amendment numbers? I wouldn't want to lose any historical > > annotations if we "set the gamestate" so that they didn't happen. (given > > that they were important to figuring this out just now!) > > And are there any side issues like this unclear enough to run against the > > "any ambiguity" standards of R105?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
More generally, have we ever done a true retroactive rule change that overwrites known rules history? I'm wondering about a slight wording change to side-step making true retroactive rules changes: The rule is amended going forward, but "the rest of the gamestate" is set to what it would have been had this been the text all along. Or am I being overly-paranoid here? On 2/18/2019 8:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote:>> The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect>> immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been>> made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now>> as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this>> proposal as part of the gamestate.)> > Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone) comment how this will be recorded in the FLR?> Will we lose amendment numbers? I wouldn't want to lose any historical> annotations if we "set the gamestate" so that they didn't happen. (given> that they were important to figuring this out just now!)> > And are there any side issues like this unclear enough to run against the> "any ambiguity" standards of R105?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
To address G’s concern, what if the proposal were to say something like this: The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was Satisfied with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. Rule 2124 is amended as follows: [amended text] > On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote: >> The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect >> immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been >> made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now >> as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this >> proposal as part of the gamestate.) > > Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone) comment how this will be recorded in the FLR? > Will we lose amendment numbers? I wouldn't want to lose any historical > annotations if we "set the gamestate" so that they didn't happen. (given > that they were important to figuring this out just now!) > > And are there any side issues like this unclear enough to run against the > "any ambiguity" standards of R105?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 08:21 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote: > > The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect > > immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been > > made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now > > as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this > > proposal as part of the gamestate.) > > Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone) comment how this will be recorded in the FLR? > Will we lose amendment numbers? I wouldn't want to lose any historical > annotations if we "set the gamestate" so that they didn't happen. (given > that they were important to figuring this out just now!) > > And are there any side issues like this unclear enough to run against the > "any ambiguity" standards of R105? Our normal fix to this sort of issue is to allow the proposal to alter the SLR, but not any information contained in the FLR unless it's also contained in the SLR. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 17:59 +, James Cook wrote: > Thanks to the listed co-authors. (AIS523, I didn't see you in the > directory; let me know if you're a player and I can polish your name > in the co-author list). I'm not currently a player, although I've been a player for fairly long periods of time (and made an ambiguous registration attempt a while back that was deemed to have failed). My usual Agoran nickname is "ais523" in lowercase (this email relay seems to be overriding the case for some reason; I had to switch relay because the email relay I was previously using stopped working with Agora). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> I also like this version. > > However, there's another problem: a dangling "it". (This is also in the > present version of the rules, which I noticed during RTRW.) You should > make it clear whether the objectors and supports are to the /intent/, > or to the /action/. (Based on the way the other rules are worded, it > should be the intent; you wouldn't want, e.g., objections to wins by > apathy to be forever. I have some sympathy for allowing a blanket > objection to all currently existing intents to perform a particular > type of action, but we normally allow that as valid shorthand anyway.) Right now, the rule says "A Supporter of a dependent action is...", which seems to define what the supporter of an action is, not the supporter of an intent, unless I'm misreading. Do you think we should change that part too? E.g. First paragraph: A Supporter of an *intent to perform an action* is An Objector to *an intent to perform an action* is... Second paragraph: ...to support or object to *an intent to perform an action* and then (incorporating D. Margaux's change in #3 as well) Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, there are at least N Objectors to that intent. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are fewer than than N Supporters for of that intent. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N times the number of Objectors to the intent.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 15, 2019, at 10:04 AM, James Cook wrote: > > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, there are > at least N Objectors to that intent. This needs an “and,” but otherwise looks good to me!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 03:02 -0500, D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:14 PM, James Cook
> > wrote:
> >
> > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
> > unless at least one of the following is true:
> >
> > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it
> > has
> > at least N objectors.
> >
> > 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has
> > fewer
> > than N supporters.
> >
> > 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
> > the number of supporters is at most N times the number of
> > objectors.
> >
> > After the bug fix, does anyone besides me find the second
> > ("unless")
> > version more clear?
>
> I like this version with “unless” the best.
I also like this version.
However, there's another problem: a dangling "it". (This is also in the
present version of the rules, which I noticed during RTRW.) You should
make it clear whether the objectors and supports are to the /intent/,
or to the /action/. (Based on the way the other rules are worded, it
should be the intent; you wouldn't want, e.g., objections to wins by
apathy to be forever. I have some sympathy for allowing a blanket
objection to all currently existing intents to perform a particular
type of action, but we normally allow that as valid shorthand anyway.)
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 14, 2019, at 11:14 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
> Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
> unless at least one of the following is true:
>
> 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has
> at least N objectors.
>
> 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer
> than N supporters.
>
> 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
> the number of supporters is at most N times the number of objectors.
>
> After the bug fix, does anyone besides me find the second ("unless")
> version more clear?
I like this version with “unless” the best.
I like that there are no if clauses in the numbered paragraphs. The original
says “if and only if: if A, then B; ...”, and the double “if” seems weird to me.
I think 3 should be something like this: “... and the number of supporters is
less than or equal to N times the number of objectors.” (So, it’s unsatisfied
if 0 supporters and 0 objectors, or if X supporters and Y * N objectors where
X<=Y.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 19:05, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the > > action has no supporters or at least one objector. > > Dumb basic formal logic question that I should really know the answer to: > > If O=0, the ratio S/O is undefined. > > Does (S/O = undefined) => (S/O > N) = FALSE? Or does (S/O = > undefined) => (S/O > N) = undefined? I'm not sure. The issue did not occur to me when I was drafting the proposal. Hopefully the latest version I posted on the discussion list avoids the issue entirely.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 14:48, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 2/14/2019 6:27 AM, James Cook wrote: > > When I stumbled across this, my guess was that at some point, the > > rules were re-arranged so that Rule 1728 is responsible everything > > about Notice, where Rule 2124 was previously, and in the process, (4) > > was supposed to be removed from 2124. But that's only a guess; I > > haven't seen the history. > > Those rules have a long and messy history. Notice was a relative latecomer > so the splicing in with methods that counted support and objections was - > well, messy (I think at one time when Notice didn't exist, people were using > things like "without 1,000 objections" as a kludge). IIRC, Notice was first > invented for Deputisation (R2160), which is why the R2160(4) clause still > has a completely independent and more straightforward implementation. Thanks, that's an interesting piece of history.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
I agree with Ørjan's opinion here, that a dependent action specifying multiple conditions is supposed to require all of those conditions. For example, the "and" between 2 and 3 is evidence of this intent. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 01:06, Madeline wrote: > > Suggested wording: > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if > one or more of the following are true: > > 1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it > has fewer than N objectors; > > 2. the action is to be performed With N support and it has > N or more supporters > > 3. the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent and either > the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the > action has at least one supporter and no objectors. > > 4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > > > On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote: > > I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of > > whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret > > that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be > > interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so > > we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: ", and > > I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier > > to phrase in the negative way. > > > > Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome. > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were > >> confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to > >> make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are > >> supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic. > >> > >> Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current > >> items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following > >> are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Ørjan. > >> > >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: > >> > >>> Sorry for all the versions. > >>> > >>> I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, > >>> Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I > >>> removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into > >>> sentences. > >>> > >>> Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3 > >>> Adoption Index: 2 > >>> Text: > >>> Replace the following part of of Rule 2124: > >>> > >>> Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if > >>> and only if: > >>> > >>> 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it > >>> has fewer than N objectors; > >>> > >>> 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has > >>> N or more supporters; and > >>> > >>> 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then > >>> the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the > >>> action has at least one supporter and no objectors. > >>> > >>> 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > >>> > >>> with this: > >>> > >>> Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action > >>> unless at least one of the following is true: > >>> > >>> 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has > >>> at least N objectors. > >>> > >>> 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer > >>> than N supporters. > >>> > >>> 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and > >>> the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the > >>> action has no supporters or at least one objector. > >>> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Here's a draft implementing Ørjan's suggestion:
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if
and only if all of the following are true:
1. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it
has fewer than N objectors.
2. If the action is to be performed With N support, then it has
N or more supporters.
3. If the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then
the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
action has at least one supporter and no objectors.
Alternatively, I think I could fix the bug in my version, like this:
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
unless at least one of the following is true:
1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has
at least N objectors.
2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer
than N supporters.
3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
the number of supporters is at most N times the number of objectors.
After the bug fix, does anyone besides me find the second ("unless")
version more clear? If people generally prefer the first version, I'll
go with that. I do believe it has the benefit of being a smaller, more
conservative change to the wording.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were
> confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to
> make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are
> supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic.
>
> Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current
> items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following
> are true" that you suggested in an earlier message.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:
>
> > Sorry for all the versions.
> >
> > I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction,
> > Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I
> > removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into
> > sentences.
> >
> > Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3
> > Adoption Index: 2
> > Text:
> > Replace the following part of of Rule 2124:
> >
> > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if
> > and only if:
> >
> > 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it
> > has fewer than N objectors;
> >
> > 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has
> > N or more supporters; and
> >
> > 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then
> > the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
> > action has at least one supporter and no objectors.
> >
> > 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.
> >
> > with this:
> >
> > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
> > unless at least one of the following is true:
> >
> > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has
> > at least N objectors.
> >
> > 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer
> > than N supporters.
> >
> > 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
> > the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the
> > action has no supporters or at least one objector.
> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
No, it's one where you promise not to act unless both are fulfilled. Greetings, Ørjan, who keeps seeing more and more evidence that humans are naturally bad at this kind of distinction. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote: How so? Does it need to have both enough support and a lack of objectors? Do we even have anything right now that works that way? Do we *want* to have anything right now that works that way? If it's one where you choose which one to declare your intent with, I don't see how it causes a problem. On 2019-02-15 12:11, Ørjan Johansen wrote: Quoting myself from my response to D. Margaux: "That breaks if intents are allowed to be both with objection and with support." Greetings, Ørjan. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote: Suggested wording: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if one or more of the following are true: 1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it has fewer than N objectors; 2. the action is to be performed With N support and it has N or more supporters 3. the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent and either the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. 4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote: I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: ", and I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier to phrase in the negative way. Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen wrote: I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic. Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: Sorry for all the versions. I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into sentences. Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3 Adoption Index: 2 Text: Replace the following part of of Rule 2124: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if: 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it has fewer than N objectors; 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has N or more supporters; and 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. with this: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has at least N objectors. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer than N supporters. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the action has no supporters or at least one objector.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
How so? Does it need to have both enough support and a lack of objectors? Do we even have anything right now that works that way? Do we *want* to have anything right now that works that way? If it's one where you choose which one to declare your intent with, I don't see how it causes a problem. On 2019-02-15 12:11, Ørjan Johansen wrote: Quoting myself from my response to D. Margaux: "That breaks if intents are allowed to be both with objection and with support." Greetings, Ørjan. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote: Suggested wording: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if one or more of the following are true: 1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it has fewer than N objectors; 2. the action is to be performed With N support and it has N or more supporters 3. the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent and either the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. 4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote: I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: ", and I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier to phrase in the negative way. Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen wrote: I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic. Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: Sorry for all the versions. I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into sentences. Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3 Adoption Index: 2 Text: Replace the following part of of Rule 2124: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if: 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it has fewer than N objectors; 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has N or more supporters; and 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. with this: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has at least N objectors. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer than N supporters. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the action has no supporters or at least one objector.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Quoting myself from my response to D. Margaux: "That breaks if intents are allowed to be both with objection and with support." Greetings, Ørjan. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote: Suggested wording: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if one or more of the following are true: 1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it has fewer than N objectors; 2. the action is to be performed With N support and it has N or more supporters 3. the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent and either the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. 4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote: I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: ", and I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier to phrase in the negative way. Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen wrote: I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic. Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: Sorry for all the versions. I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into sentences. Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3 Adoption Index: 2 Text: Replace the following part of of Rule 2124: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if: 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it has fewer than N objectors; 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has N or more supporters; and 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. with this: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has at least N objectors. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer than N supporters. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the action has no supporters or at least one objector.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Suggested wording: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if one or more of the following are true: 1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it has fewer than N objectors; 2. the action is to be performed With N support and it has N or more supporters 3. the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent and either the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. 4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote: I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: ", and I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier to phrase in the negative way. Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen wrote: I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic. Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: Sorry for all the versions. I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into sentences. Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3 Adoption Index: 2 Text: Replace the following part of of Rule 2124: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if: 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it has fewer than N objectors; 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has N or more supporters; and 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. with this: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has at least N objectors. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer than N supporters. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the action has no supporters or at least one objector.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: ", and I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier to phrase in the negative way. Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were > confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to > make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are > supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic. > > Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current > items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following > are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: > > > Sorry for all the versions. > > > > I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, > > Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I > > removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into > > sentences. > > > > Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3 > > Adoption Index: 2 > > Text: > > Replace the following part of of Rule 2124: > > > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if > > and only if: > > > > 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it > > has fewer than N objectors; > > > > 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has > > N or more supporters; and > > > > 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then > > the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the > > action has at least one supporter and no objectors. > > > > 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > > > > with this: > > > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action > > unless at least one of the following is true: > > > > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has > > at least N objectors. > > > > 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer > > than N supporters. > > > > 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and > > the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the > > action has no supporters or at least one objector. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: The way it should work is for Agora to be satisfied if any of (1) through (4) are satisfied. That is, Agora is “satisfied” if there were fewer than N objections and the action was without N objections; OR if there are more than N supporters and the action was with N support; OR the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than or equal to N and the action is to be taken with N Agoran Consent; etc. That breaks if intents are allowed to be both with objection and with support. I think there was once a rule that allowed making intents with stricter methods than necessary (I guess you still can add conditions). Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On 2/14/2019 6:45 AM, James Cook wrote: But I also thought, because of that, that we were supposed to be able to say things like "with support and no objection". If that doesn't get used anywhere, maybe we should clarify that Agoran Satisfaction is an or, and include #4 as "the action is to be performed With Notice". Is that what you're suggesting? Interestingly, that was the original definition of Consent: Rule 2124/0 (Power=1) Agoran Consent If the Rules specify that an entity may perform an action with Agoran Consent, then the entity may perform the action with M supporters and without N objections, as long as M is greater than N. (At the time, the announcement of intent wasn't required to pre-specify values for M or N).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On 2/14/2019 6:27 AM, James Cook wrote: When I stumbled across this, my guess was that at some point, the rules were re-arranged so that Rule 1728 is responsible everything about Notice, where Rule 2124 was previously, and in the process, (4) was supposed to be removed from 2124. But that's only a guess; I haven't seen the history. Those rules have a long and messy history. Notice was a relative latecomer so the splicing in with methods that counted support and objections was - well, messy (I think at one time when Notice didn't exist, people were using things like "without 1,000 objections" as a kludge). IIRC, Notice was first invented for Deputisation (R2160), which is why the R2160(4) clause still has a completely independent and more straightforward implementation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
What if we change the Agoran Satisfaction rule to be a bit closer to my pedantic elabouration, by saying "if and only if all of the following are true", and making each individual condition automatically true of the condition it refers to isn't part of the dependent action's requirements? Then Agora would be trivially satisfied with things to be performed With Notice. This was how I thought it was meant to work. But I also thought, because of that, that we were supposed to be able to say things like "with support and no objection". If that doesn't get used anywhere, maybe we should clarify that Agoran Satisfaction is an or, and include #4 as "the action is to be performed With Notice". Is that what you're suggesting? On Thu., Feb. 14, 2019, 09:30 D. Margaux > > > On Feb 14, 2019, at 9:27 AM, James Cook wrote: > > > > That would work, because Rule 1728 already covers notice: "3. If the > > action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent was announced > > at least T earlier.". Is there anything wrong with leaving it that way > > (which would be accomplished by my proposal)? > > I think the problem would be that 1728 also requires that “Agora is > Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules.” So there > needs to be a way for Ag to be satisfied with a with Notice intent.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> On Feb 14, 2019, at 9:27 AM, James Cook wrote: > > That would work, because Rule 1728 already covers notice: "3. If the > action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent was announced > at least T earlier.". Is there anything wrong with leaving it that way > (which would be accomplished by my proposal)? I think the problem would be that 1728 also requires that “Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules.” So there needs to be a way for Ag to be satisfied with a with Notice intent.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> The way it should work is for Agora to be satisfied if any of (1) through (4) > are satisfied. That is, Agora is “satisfied” if there were fewer than N > objections and the action was without N objections; OR if there are more than > N supporters and the action was with N support; OR the ratio of supporters to > objectors is greater than or equal to N and the action is to be taken with N > Agoran Consent; etc. Hang on. I thought that the intention is (1) and (2) and (3). More pedantically: (objection isn't a condition OR there were no objections) AND (support isn't a condition OR there was support) AND (Agoran Consent isn't a condition OR ...). That would work, because Rule 1728 already covers notice: "3. If the action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent was announced at least T earlier.". Is there anything wrong with leaving it that way (which would be accomplished by my proposal)? When I stumbled across this, my guess was that at some point, the rules were re-arranged so that Rule 1728 is responsible everything about Notice, where Rule 2124 was previously, and in the process, (4) was supposed to be removed from 2124. But that's only a guess; I haven't seen the history.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Nice find. This is definitely a badly worded rule, and in need of fixing! “Agoran Satisfaction” refers to meeting the specific conditions for performing an action by a particular method. So, for example, Agora is satisfied if there are 0 objections and the action is Without N Objections, but it is not necessarily satisfied if the action requires N support (because lack of objection does not equal support). The way it should work is for Agora to be satisfied if any of (1) through (4) are satisfied. That is, Agora is “satisfied” if there were fewer than N objections and the action was without N objections; OR if there are more than N supporters and the action was with N support; OR the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than or equal to N and the action is to be taken with N Agoran Consent; etc. The reason I think for having (4), is because Agoran Satisfaction is required to perform all dependent actions, but support and objections are irrelevant when the action is to be taken with Notice or with T Notice, so agora is always “satisfied” with an Notice or T Notice intent. (The next question is whether enough notice was given, which is governed by Rule 1728, and whether the specific action can be taken by Notice or T Notice, which is governed by whatever rule authorized the action.) The problem you identified is that the list should be phrased disjunctively, and it’s at least ambiguous or may actually be phrased conjunctively, which would be a real problem. For a fix, I probably wouldn’t just delete (4). I would instead say Agora is satisfied if (1), (2), (3) or (4). > On Feb 14, 2019, at 8:38 AM, James Cook wrote: > > If my CFJ is judged true, I welcome any proposal that would avoid > messing up all those past dependent actions. I feel bad depriving > anyone of a well-earned victory. Is there a clean way to do that? > > I suppose I could draft a proposal that some specific effects happen, > e.g. "I propose that Gaelan wins the game by Apathy", but that seems a > bit silly. > >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:32, James Cook wrote: >> >> I submit a CFJ, specifying: >> >> "Agora is not Satisfied with an intent to perform an action unless it >> is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. In particular, >> Gaelan's recent attempt to Declare Apathy on February 7, 2019 was >> ineffective, and D. Margaux's dependent actions in their recent >> message that starts 'I thought for sure people would object...' were >> ineffective." >> >> See below for my evidence, argument, and a proposal to fix it. If it's >> judged true, I encourage others to consider that other recent >> dependent actions may not have been effective. >> >> As evidence, I quote Rule 2124: >> >> # Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if >> # and only if: >> # >> # 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it >> #has fewer than N objectors; >> # >> # 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has >> #N or more supporters; and >> # >> # 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then >> #the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the >> #action has at least one supporter and no objectors. >> # >> # 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. >> >> Here is my argument: Number 4 in that list doesn't have any word to >> link it to other items in the list (like the "and" between 2 and 3), >> but the only reasonable interpretation is that it's an additional >> condition that needs to be satisfied. >> >> I submit a proposal as follows. >> Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction >> Adoption Index: 2 >> Text: >> Amend Rule 2124 by deleting the text "4. if the action is to be >> performed With Notice or With T Notice.".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Well, if you assume an "or" between each clause, then it means Agora is always satisfied with the intent if the intent is "with T notice" (meaning once the waiting period has past, no count of supporters or objectors is needed), eg: Satisfied if (support AND enough support) OR (objections AND not too many objections) OR (Consent and the right amount) OR (Notice [no counting clause needed]). But you're right, the "or" needs to be there to make that clear, and without the 'or', the weird construction of the 'ifs' makes your interpretation possible... On 2/14/2019 5:39 AM, James Cook wrote: (Also, how did #4 end up in that rule?) On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:38, James Cook wrote: If my CFJ is judged true, I welcome any proposal that would avoid messing up all those past dependent actions. I feel bad depriving anyone of a well-earned victory. Is there a clean way to do that? I suppose I could draft a proposal that some specific effects happen, e.g. "I propose that Gaelan wins the game by Apathy", but that seems a bit silly. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:32, James Cook wrote: I submit a CFJ, specifying: "Agora is not Satisfied with an intent to perform an action unless it is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. In particular, Gaelan's recent attempt to Declare Apathy on February 7, 2019 was ineffective, and D. Margaux's dependent actions in their recent message that starts 'I thought for sure people would object...' were ineffective." See below for my evidence, argument, and a proposal to fix it. If it's judged true, I encourage others to consider that other recent dependent actions may not have been effective. As evidence, I quote Rule 2124: # Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if # and only if: # # 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it #has fewer than N objectors; # # 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has #N or more supporters; and # # 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then #the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the #action has at least one supporter and no objectors. # # 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. Here is my argument: Number 4 in that list doesn't have any word to link it to other items in the list (like the "and" between 2 and 3), but the only reasonable interpretation is that it's an additional condition that needs to be satisfied. I submit a proposal as follows. Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction Adoption Index: 2 Text: Amend Rule 2124 by deleting the text "4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.".
