Re: DIS: [Proto] a fix for proposals that depend on other proposals passing
On 1/13/2019 6:33 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I think that dependency should be a CANNOT for the Assesor, rather than a SHALL NOT, because it ensures that any mistake isn’t legally binding. The resolution of a proposal is self-ratifying in any case, so it won’t inject long term uncertainty. Making it a CANNOT would be a power-3 thing again, to overrule R208 and/or 106. (If you think about it, it would be a security hole if you could apply a CANNOT at power-1, because that would mean someone could scam in a power-1 "a proposal CANNOT be resolved unless I say so" rule).
DIS: Re: BUS: Open call for politician names
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I pledge that whenever I create a politician with a name someone else suggested to me, I will transfer 5 coins to that person (if it would be LEGAL and POSSIBLE to do so). *Looks up the previous list to avoid duplicates* Theresa Cannot Benjamin Surreali Ronald Ray-Gun Genghis Khaan Lex Luthor Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: [Proto] a fix for proposals that depend on other proposals passing
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 4:52 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 1/13/2019 3:42 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:> Also, a "this > proposal does not work unless" needs a pretty high power, > > which feels like it shouldn't be necessary for this. You might be able > > to get away with defining "this proposal is dependent on proposal X" to > > mean "this proposal can only pass if proposal X passes", but even > > that's on shaky ground if the proposal outpowers the rule. > > A proposal has to take effect to apply its definitions (if it's defined > as a "dependent proposal" internally, that definition clause wouldn't > take effect if the proposal doesn't). How about allowing the proposal to > "take effect" as a whole, but stating that the clauses contained within > don't make further changes, e.g.: > If a Proposal clearly and explicitly states it is a dependent > proposal, > no other clauses in the proposal are applied if its dependencies have > not taken effect. > > This works (maybe?) because R106 explicitly defers to other rules to figure > out which individual changes are applied: > 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. > > and the fact that, once the proposal takes effect as a whole, it has the > power as an instrument to nullify the rest of its clauses from being > applied (it uses the proposal's power to do so, not any rule's power). > > For safety and cleanliness, it should be phrased as a free definition (i.e. “For a proposal to depend on another proposal means for it to take effect if and only if...”). This would make the rule one long definition, which the proposal would be applying against itself. In other words, it would act solely as shorthand for the existing way we do things. The one tricky bit is the section on deferred resolution, because you have to say something like “If a proposal states that it depends on another proposal, it cannot be resolved unless...”. I think that dependency should be a CANNOT for the Assesor, rather than a SHALL NOT, because it ensures that any mistake isn’t legally binding. The resolution of a proposal is self-ratifying in any case, so it won’t inject long term uncertainty. -Aris
Re: DIS: [Proto] a fix for proposals that depend on other proposals passing
On 1/13/2019 3:42 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:> Also, a "this proposal does not work unless" needs a pretty high power, > which feels like it shouldn't be necessary for this. You might be able > to get away with defining "this proposal is dependent on proposal X" to > mean "this proposal can only pass if proposal X passes", but even > that's on shaky ground if the proposal outpowers the rule. A proposal has to take effect to apply its definitions (if it's defined as a "dependent proposal" internally, that definition clause wouldn't take effect if the proposal doesn't). How about allowing the proposal to "take effect" as a whole, but stating that the clauses contained within don't make further changes, e.g.: If a Proposal clearly and explicitly states it is a dependent proposal, no other clauses in the proposal are applied if its dependencies have not taken effect. This works (maybe?) because R106 explicitly defers to other rules to figure out which individual changes are applied: 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. and the fact that, once the proposal takes effect as a whole, it has the power as an instrument to nullify the rest of its clauses from being applied (it uses the proposal's power to do so, not any rule's power).
Re: DIS: [Proto] a fix for proposals that depend on other proposals passing
On Sun, 2019-01-13 at 16:25 -0700, Reuben Staley wrote: > Please submit revision ideas for this proto-proposal. I'm pretty sure > it works this way, but I know there are other ways to do it. Also the > wording is terrible. Should be a SHALL NOT on the promotor for resolving proposals out of order. Also, a "this proposal does not work unless" needs a pretty high power, which feels like it shouldn't be necessary for this. You might be able to get away with defining "this proposal is dependent on proposal X" to mean "this proposal can only pass if proposal X passes", but even that's on shaky ground if the proposal outpowers the rule. -- ais523
Re: DIS: [Proto] a fix for proposals that depend on other proposals passing
I very much like the basic idea, although I'd question how often simple dependencies come up. It's still good as a starting point for future work though. Fixes follow. You need to handle indirect dependency cycles. You need to specify what happens in the case of a dependency cycle (I'd go with every proposal in the cycle fails to have an effect, since they're clearly broken; you should also make sure that the resolution order requirement doesn't apply in this case). You need to specify what happens if a proposal declares a dependency on a non-existent proposal (this can be handled with the previous case, using some kind of catch-all). You need to make REJECTED "an outcome other than ADOPTED", because FAILED QUORUM or any other non-ADOPTED outcome still makes it fail. -Aris On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 3:24 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > > Please submit revision ideas for this proto-proposal. I'm pretty sure it > works this way, but I know there are other ways to do it. Also the > wording is terrible. > > Title: Dependent Proposals Draft > Author: Trigon > Coauthors: > > Create a rule entitled "Dependent Proposals" with the text: > >If a proposal's text states that it is dependent on one or more >proposals, it is considered a dependent proposal. The dependencies >of a dependent proposal are any proposals it is dependent on. > >Dependent proposals must be resolved after all of their >dependencies. Two proposals cannot have each other listed as >dependencies. > >If one or more dependencies of a dependent proposal have the >outcome REJECTED, then the dependent proposal has no effect. > > -- > Trigon
DIS: [Proto] a fix for proposals that depend on other proposals passing
Please submit revision ideas for this proto-proposal. I'm pretty sure it works this way, but I know there are other ways to do it. Also the wording is terrible. Title: Dependent Proposals Draft Author: Trigon Coauthors: Create a rule entitled "Dependent Proposals" with the text: If a proposal's text states that it is dependent on one or more proposals, it is considered a dependent proposal. The dependencies of a dependent proposal are any proposals it is dependent on. Dependent proposals must be resolved after all of their dependencies. Two proposals cannot have each other listed as dependencies. If one or more dependencies of a dependent proposal have the outcome REJECTED, then the dependent proposal has no effect. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset: Second Week of 2019
Indeed it is. I blame the gmail client. I was out of town at that point and didn't think I was going to be back in town before the week was up. I apologize for this misinformation; it was not intentional. I'm going to submit a revision in a few minutes. On 1/11/19 7:32 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, Reuben Staley wrote: THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET I think that's a bit shorter than you intended. Greetings, Ørjan. -- Trigon
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
On Sunday, January 13, 2019 6:12 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: > You can find an up-to-date version of this report at > http://localhost/adop/report.php Funnily enough, I don't appear to be able to. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Well, let's see what happens
Lol, great idea! If all of these proposals pass, then I think any resulting CFJ can have only two possible outcomes: (1) it would read “Tangelo” into the beginning of every rule, or (2) it would somehow maneuver to give the rule no practical effect (basically the same outcome). Otherwise, Rule 991 would cease to be a “rule,” and CFJs themselves would become impossible (a so-called performative contradiction). It would also make enough other rules cease to be “rules” that Agora would become ossified (in violation of a power=4 rule). > On Jan 13, 2019, at 9:03 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I submit the following three proposals. > > (The automatic repeal clause is in case it does actually end up breaking > something important.) > > -twg > > // > Title: Powerless Tangeloes > Adoption index: 0.1 > Author: twg > > > Enact a new rule "The Tangelo Rule" (Power=0.1) with the following > text: > > Tangelo. All rules begin with the word "Tangelo". This rule > automatically repeals itself 10 days after it is enacted. > > // > Title: Powerful Tangeloes > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: twg > > > If a rule named "The Tangelo Rule" exists, set its Power to 3.0. > > Otherwise, enact a new rule "The Tangelo Rule" (Power=3.0) with the > following text: > > Tangelo. All rules begin with the word "Tangelo". This rule > automatically repeals itself 10 days after it is enacted. > > // > Title: Tangeloes Taking Precedence > Adoption index: 0.1 > Author: twg > > > If a rule named "The Tangelo Rule" exists, amend it by replacing the > text "All rules" with "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, all > rules". > > //
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
Meant to reply to twg’s comments on the zombie auction CFJ earlier, but got a bit busy this week. A few thoughts for your consideration: > Twg wrote: > > The implication would seem to be that rules can redefine what other rules > mean. This does seem to me to be one reasonable approach to interpreting a code of rules—to interpret a provision in light of provisions in other rules, in a manner that tries to harmonize the rules into a consistent whole. That might feel reasonable to me because it’s a common discursive move in the area of my specialty (law). People from other backgrounds might find it less satisfying or reasonable, though, which could be an example of the sort of diversity of interpretive method that I think can be very cool about Agora. > But if, say, we had a rule saying "All rules begin with the word 'Tangelo'.", > a statement which is manifestly untrue (at least at present), surely that > should not be interpreted as a requirement to play the game _as if_ every > rule began with the word "Tangelo". (Perhaps it could be interpreted as a > redefinition of the word "rule", but then it would need to be at least power > 3, to override rule 2141.) I think the logic is similar. In this hypothetical, i can see several approaches: Maybe the Tangelo Rule would have no effect if it were contradicted by a higher powered rule (e.g., Rule 105, which purports to be the “only mechanism by which rules can be created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule or cease to be a rule”). Absent a contradictory higher powered Rule, I think the Tangelo Rule (1) could invalidate any lower powered Rule that does not begin with Tangelo, on the theory that it wouldn’t actually be a Rule, or (2) alternatively, it could cause us to insert the word “Tangelo” at the beginning of any lower powered Rule, on the theory that the lower powered Rule, qua Rule, must include the word “Tangelo” at the start. And for higher powered Rules, we might either (1) insert “Tangelo” at the start (if that does not affect the functioning of the higher powered rule) or else (2) ignore the Tangelo Rule altogether (because contradicted by higher powered Rules). I suppose we could also just decide that the Tangelo Rule states an untrue fact about the world and therefore has no effect, but that approach seems to me to be in tension with Rule 217: “When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence.” Simply disregarding as factually wrong a high-enough-powered Tangelo Rule, I think, would give precedence to something other than the text of the rules. Maybe.
