No, but I've never spotted any exploit before it actually happens and yet
people still pull things off every so often. At the very least I would like
some official confirmation that I'm just worrying about nothing.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, July 5, 2019 6:31 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I don't really see how that could be exploitable. Anyway, whenever a
> rule says "If X occurs, Y occurs", that rule is pretty clearly the
> agent for Y.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 8:22 AM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > I didn't see that, but in any case I'm not 100% convinced by Aris' logic.
> > Letting rule changes take effect without clearly specifying the instrument
> > causing them just feels like the sort of thing which, if it worked, would
> > have been used by ais523 for a scam at some point.
> > -twg
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Friday, July 5, 2019 2:35 PM, Jason Cobb jason.e.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Gratuitous:
> > > This was already brought up by omd 0, and Aris gave a response arguing
> > > that it would work 1.
> > > Jason Cobb
> > > On 7/5/19 10:03 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > >
> > > > CFJ: Rule 2598 has been repealed.
> > > > Gratuitous argument for FALSE - R2598 says/said:
> > > >
> > > >8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When
> > > > this Rule is triggered, the following events happen in order:
> > > > (a) the Politics Rules are automatically repealed in ascending
> > > > numerical order (unless Politics has been Revived), (b) the
> > > > Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in ascending
> > > > numerical
> > > > order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this Rule is
> > > > automatically repealed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's not clear to me that those events can/could actually occur - the
> > > > rule is/was just stating that they happen, rather than stating that it
> > > > (or something else with Power >= 3.0) makes them happen. R105 is pretty
> > > > unambiguous that rule changes can only be caused by instruments, which
> > > > is why we have verbose things like this in R106:
> > > >
> > > >When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if
> > > >the outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted,
> > > >and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power
> > > > is
> > > >set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it
> > > >takes effect. 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.nother instrument
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -twg
> > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > > On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 7:08 AM, Aris Merchant
> > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > With Agoran Consent, I do so.
> > > > > -Aris
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:22 PM Aris Merchant <
> > > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Well, there's a simpler solution to that problem. It's not like
> > > > > > we're
> > > > > > really going to go back to our minigames anyway; that's not how the
> > > > > > Agoran mind seems to work. If someone actually wants to revive a
> > > > > > minigame, they can say so, and I'll probably support the intent.
> > > > > > Otherwise...
> > > > > > I intend with Agoran Consent to trigger Rule 2598, "Side-Game
> > > > > > Suspension".
> > > > > > For the public reference, the relevant provision of that rule is as
> > > > > > follows:
> > > > > > "Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When this
> > > > > > Rule
> > > > > > is triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics
> > > > > > Rules are automatically repealed in ascending numerical order
> > > > > > (unless
> > > > > > Politics has been Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically
> > > > > > repealed in ascending numerical order (unless Spaaace has been
> > > > > > Revived), and (c) this Rule is automatically repealed."
> > > > > > -Aris
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:16 PM Rebecca edwardostra...@gmail.com
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I hereby swear an Oath to vote AGAINST any proposal that adds
> > > > > > > more text
> > > > > > > than it deletes for at least the next 30 days.
> > > > > > > From R. Lee
