Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Politics
I didn’t find the Politics game particularly fun to play On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 02:07, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Yeah, I noticed that earlier in the week but didn't get around to stopping > you. Win by apathy indeed. :P > > -twg > > Original Message > On 25 Feb 2019, 00:01, D. Margaux wrote: > > > I pay 24 balloons to win the game (legitimately this time). > > > > H. Clork: Unless I misread the rules or botched the calculations last > week, I think this works? > > > > Although, given the lack of interest anyone else has shown in the > politics subgame, perhaps this should be categorized as a win by apathy...
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.
DIS: Re: BUS: let's proceed to the second line-item
I’m all for more meta-shenanigans—it’s a game about changing the rules, and it’s only right to change the rules about changing the rules. However, I am with ais523 that we should have a power restriction. Also, if this is a real proposal, you might want to just avoid the power debate. IMO, put the rule at power 2 and have it work by reverting rules (and anything else 2-secured) to their state immediately before the proposal. Gaelan > On Feb 24, 2019, at 4:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I submit the following proposal, line-item veto 2, AI-1: > > Enact a Rule, "Line-item Veto", with the following text: > > The Comptrollor is an imposed office. When the office is vacant, > the ADoP CAN, by announcement, set the Comptroller to a player > chosen at random from the set of current Officers, excepting any > player who was most recently the Comptrollor. The ADoP SHALL do > so in a timely fashion after the office becomes vacant. > > When the Comptrollor office has been held for the same player for > 30 days, it becomes vacant. > > A Notice of Veto is a body of text, published by the Comptrollor, > clearly, directly, and without obfuscation labelled within the > publishing message as being a Notice of Veto. > > When a Comptrollor publishes a Notice of Veto, the office of > Comptrollor becomes vacant. > > If the text of a Notice of Veto clearly indicates certain > provisions within specified Proposals as being vetoed, and the > voting period for a decision to adopt the proposal is ongoing > when the Notice is published, then the provision is vetoed. > For the purposes of this Rule, each individual change specified > within a proposal's text is a "provision". > > Vetoed provisions in a proposal CANNOT be applied when that > proposal takes effect. > >
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: let's proceed to the second line-item
On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 01:11 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > What about just requiring Agoran Consent? Seems like the obvious way > to protect something that could be useful or dangerous depending on > who's using it. Historically, we've restricted this sort of screwing with proposals to proposals whose AI is within a certain range (e.g. strictly less than 2). That protects the integrity of the high-powered rules, but means that you still have a lot to mess around with, because setting the AI that high would be unlikely unless it was necessary (and in any case would make the proposal harder to pass). There was also a long-lasting and somewhat controversial rule allowing players to negate any sort of screwing with proposals with 3 support. I think it made scamming much more interesting, because a necessary condition for any sort of proposal forcethrough scam was that players didn't notice anything suspicious about the proposal in question (otherwise they'd pre-emptively "democratise" the proposal in case it was part of a scam). In hindsight, this sort of protection also had the effect of making players much more willing to experiment with rules that allowed interference with proposals; the fact that a safety mechanism was there meant we could be riskier with other rules concerning proposal tampering. Incidentally, this is also the era that most of the escalator scams came from; your proposal forcethrough couldn't get past the "automatic democratisation" barrier, so instead you made an AI 1 proposal that was intentionally buggy and lead to a Power 1 dictatorship, then tried to find a way to wheedle that into a full dictatorship over the whole of Agora. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: let's proceed to the second line-item
What about just requiring Agoran Consent? Seems like the obvious way to protect something that could be useful or dangerous depending on who's using it. -twg Original Message On 25 Feb 2019, 01:08, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > It seems to me that this would cause a heap of complications in writing > proposals, which would need to include safeguards against disastrous > partial applications. For example, a proposal that splits an important > rule into two parts, by amending the original and creating a new one, > could easily be vetoed to cancel the creation part. > > Alternatively, voters could make votes conditional on whether there is a > veto or not. > > On the other hand, I can imagine occasional useful vetoes to cancel bugs > and the like. > > In sum, this proposal can't cause real trouble if proposal writers > or voters are really careful, but that may be a tall assumption. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > On Sun, 24 Feb [2019](tel:2019), Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> I submit the following proposal, line-item veto 2, AI-1: >> >> Enact a Rule, "Line-item Veto", with the following text: >> >> The Comptrollor is an imposed office. When the office is vacant, >> the ADoP CAN, by announcement, set the Comptroller to a player >> chosen at random from the set of current Officers, excepting any >> player who was most recently the Comptrollor. The ADoP SHALL do >> so in a timely fashion after the office becomes vacant. >> >> When the Comptrollor office has been held for the same player for >> 30 days, it becomes vacant. >> >> A Notice of Veto is a body of text, published by the Comptrollor, >> clearly, directly, and without obfuscation labelled within the >> publishing message as being a Notice of Veto. >> >> When a Comptrollor publishes a Notice of Veto, the office of >> Comptrollor becomes vacant. >> >> If the text of a Notice of Veto clearly indicates certain >> provisions within specified Proposals as being vetoed, and the >> voting period for a decision to adopt the proposal is ongoing >> when the Notice is published, then the provision is vetoed. >> For the purposes of this Rule, each individual change specified >> within a proposal's text is a "provision". >> >> Vetoed provisions in a proposal CANNOT be applied when that >> proposal takes effect. >> >> >> >>
DIS: Re: BUS: Politics
Yeah, I noticed that earlier in the week but didn't get around to stopping you. Win by apathy indeed. :P -twg Original Message On 25 Feb 2019, 00:01, D. Margaux wrote: > I pay 24 balloons to win the game (legitimately this time). > > H. Clork: Unless I misread the rules or botched the calculations last week, I > think this works? > > Although, given the lack of interest anyone else has shown in the politics > subgame, perhaps this should be categorized as a win by apathy...
DIS: Re: BUS: let's proceed to the second line-item
It seems to me that this would cause a heap of complications in writing proposals, which would need to include safeguards against disastrous partial applications. For example, a proposal that splits an important rule into two parts, by amending the original and creating a new one, could easily be vetoed to cancel the creation part. Alternatively, voters could make votes conditional on whether there is a veto or not. On the other hand, I can imagine occasional useful vetoes to cancel bugs and the like. In sum, this proposal can't cause real trouble if proposal writers or voters are really careful, but that may be a tall assumption. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following proposal, line-item veto 2, AI-1: Enact a Rule, "Line-item Veto", with the following text: The Comptrollor is an imposed office. When the office is vacant, the ADoP CAN, by announcement, set the Comptroller to a player chosen at random from the set of current Officers, excepting any player who was most recently the Comptrollor. The ADoP SHALL do so in a timely fashion after the office becomes vacant. When the Comptrollor office has been held for the same player for 30 days, it becomes vacant. A Notice of Veto is a body of text, published by the Comptrollor, clearly, directly, and without obfuscation labelled within the publishing message as being a Notice of Veto. When a Comptrollor publishes a Notice of Veto, the office of Comptrollor becomes vacant. If the text of a Notice of Veto clearly indicates certain provisions within specified Proposals as being vetoed, and the voting period for a decision to adopt the proposal is ongoing when the Notice is published, then the provision is vetoed. For the purposes of this Rule, each individual change specified within a proposal's text is a "provision". Vetoed provisions in a proposal CANNOT be applied when that proposal takes effect.
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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Politics
I was mildly interested, but I was deterred from participation by the early scam. -- Trigon On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 17:06 Kerim Aydin > Funnily enough, the last time this was implemented, the same sort of thing > happened: several people said "this sounds cool", then almost no one played > and the winner was effectively unopposed. (for me personally, the rules > sounded worth trying and are well-written, I just didn't get around to > thinking through any moves). Dunno why it plays out that way! > > On 2/24/2019 4:01 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > I pay 24 balloons to win the game (legitimately this time). > > > > H. Clork: Unless I misread the rules or botched the calculations last > week, I think this works? > > > > Although, given the lack of interest anyone else has shown in the > politics subgame, perhaps this should be categorized as a win by apathy... > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Politics
Funnily enough, the last time this was implemented, the same sort of thing happened: several people said "this sounds cool", then almost no one played and the winner was effectively unopposed. (for me personally, the rules sounded worth trying and are well-written, I just didn't get around to thinking through any moves). Dunno why it plays out that way! On 2/24/2019 4:01 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I pay 24 balloons to win the game (legitimately this time). H. Clork: Unless I misread the rules or botched the calculations last week, I think this works? Although, given the lack of interest anyone else has shown in the politics subgame, perhaps this should be categorized as a win by apathy...
Fwd: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again
(another from Murphy)
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2019 12:09:41 -0800
From: Edward Murphy
To: Kerim Aydin
G. wrote:
But if you really want it, please take it out of the wins at this point.
How about a new Patent Title ("A player CAN award emself the Patent Title
Sneaky without objection.") It should also be for a person only - it's too
damn cheap if you can basically bribe half the players to keep silent by
including them in the set.
It would also need a time limit, otherwise a majority of players can
just (say) agree to a contract like "Each member pledges to remain a
member until each member has gotten a win by Apathy since this contract
was created, and not object to any intent to get such a win".
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: line-item veto
CuddleBeam's reading is exactly my intended one - the language is precisely worded to be triggered by the "except as prohibited by other rules" in the first part of R106, thus doing an end-run around the latter R106 clause with a power-1 rule. But only if we hold the position that "except as prohibited by other rules" is not "deference" to other rules, therefore not blocked by R1030 (deference to a lower-powered rule). On 2/24/2019 12:33 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: That actually doesn't serve as protection, ais523. 106 is about proposals not having effects altogether, this is about the proposal still passing and doing things, yet it's *text* that has fuckery applied to it. (And proposals are more than just its effect text.) Vetoed provisions in a proposal CANNOT be applied when that proposal takes effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Like, the proposal actually happens - but with blocked parts in its text, and nothing stops you from blocking everything. Sure, the proposal happened (and if it passes, you'd get your Ribbons still, I imagine), it's just that all of its *text content* could be practically blank. Or just chosen parts are blank. In R106 we certainly have got: Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change Its the proposal's content text part that gets fucked with. The proposal is still delivered. On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:19 AM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: On Sat, 2019-02-23 at 18:51 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following proposal, line-item veto, AI-1: [snip] Vetoed provisions in a proposal CANNOT be applied when that proposal takes effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Doing this is secured at Power 3 (last paragraph of rule 106). This is probably for a good reason. -- ais523
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.
DIS: Re: BUS: line-item veto
That actually doesn't serve as protection, ais523. 106 is about proposals not having effects altogether, this is about the proposal still passing and doing things, yet it's *text* that has fuckery applied to it. (And proposals are more than just its effect text.) >Vetoed provisions in a proposal CANNOT be applied when that proposal takes effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Like, the proposal actually happens - but with blocked parts in its text, and nothing stops you from blocking everything. Sure, the proposal happened (and if it passes, you'd get your Ribbons still, I imagine), it's just that all of its *text content* could be practically blank. Or just chosen parts are blank. In R106 we certainly have got: >Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change Its the proposal's content text part that gets fucked with. The proposal is still delivered. On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 9:19 AM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 2019-02-23 at 18:51 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, line-item veto, AI-1: > [snip] > >Vetoed provisions in a proposal CANNOT be applied when that > >proposal takes effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. > Doing this is secured at Power 3 (last paragraph of rule 106). > > This is probably for a good reason. > > -- > ais523 > >
DIS: Re: BUS: line-item veto
Hey, this is some scary shit man. > " The Comptroller CAN, by announcement, veto the individual provisions in a proposal during the voting period of a Decision to adopt the proposal." Couldn't you just veto... Everything? Sure, you are vetoing individual provisionsSSS, but you could veto every single one. Scams are often stopped/neutered via proposals to change the rules, but if you hold absolute power to block any proposal you want, well... (Is having "Troll" in the name deliberate? lol) On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 3:51 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, line-item veto, AI-1: > > Enact a Rule, "Line-item Veto", with the following text: > >The Comptroller is an imposed office. In the first Eastman Week >of each month, the ADoP CAN and SHALL, by announcement, set the >Comptroller to a player chosen at random from the set of current >Officers. > >The Comptroller CAN, by announcement, veto the individual >provisions in a proposal during the voting period of a Decision >to adopt the proposal. For the purposes of this Rule, each >individual change specified within a proposal's text is a >"provision". > >Vetoed provisions in a proposal CANNOT be applied when that >proposal takes effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. > > >
