DIS: Re: OFF: [FRC] Let the Festivities Commence!
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 03:38, Aris Merchant wrote: > 2. Variety. Contributions that move things in a new direction shall be >rewarded. Contributions that merely repeat things that have come >before shall be punished. Remember that there are three distinct goals for >the contest; pursuing one that has been long abandoned by your fellow >worshipers is likely to please the gods. Colud Your Supreme Eminence remind me of the three goals? My goal as always is to please the AGORAN GODS in any way I can, but I see just two ways to win listed in Regulation 7. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] I submit myself to the Agoran Gods!
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 04:33, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 8/4/19 12:24 AM, Rebecca wrote: > > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I join the FRC and create the following > > rule > > > > O Hark, the commandments of the LORD are upon us! The LORD demanding the > > respect he deserves, the LORD hereby decrees that all references to Agoran > > Gods shall refer to em in ALL CAPITALS. > > > > Praise the LORD > > > [This is not a challenge, and is not sent to the public forum] > > Does this make it impossible for new contestants to legally join? If all > references to the Agoran Gods must be in all capitals, then the header > "I submit myself to the Agoran Gods!" must be transformed to "I submit > myself to the AGORAN GODS!", but that might (?) violate my Fantasy Rule. > > -- > Jason Cobb People seem to be reading your rule as allowing the "I submit" part to be outside the text of the new rule itself, which might get around R. Lee's rule. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: No August zombie auction for now
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 19:57, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Hello my bruddah and sistahs, please make way for my infinite swagger: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_izvAbhExY Hi Cuddle Beam! In case you're trying to not become a zombie, a reminder that you need to post to a public forum to prevent that. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Email change
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 14:08, Nich Evans wrote: > In a decluttering effort, I'm going to start using this address. > > -- > Nich Evans Let me know if you'd like it to be included somewhere in the Registrar's reports. E.g. I could add it to your footnote at https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/monthly/fresh.txt -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:31 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > On 8/4/19 1:23 AM, James Cook wrote: > >Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN > >Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or > >Scissors. A player CAN Reach into the Past by announcement at any > >time. If a player Communes the Wheel at a time T, and does not > >Reach into the Past in the four days following T, then at time T > >the value of the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e > >specified. > > > I've been grappling with this for a while now, and I'm not sure that > this works. (Read: very, very unsure. It took me a while to decide to > even send this message, and I've started writing and then discarded > something like it several times.) > > Rule 2141 reads, in part: > > > A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the > > game generally, and is always taking effect. A rule's content > > takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope. > > This is the only place that states that the Rules actually take effect, > and when they do so. Given the specification "at time T", I don't think > that a Rule can point to an arbitrary time and say "disregard what time > it is now, I'm taking effect _then_". Even if this doesn’t actually work, we could probably understand it as establishing a legal fiction for the purposes of that rule. Of course, legal fictions can say whatever they want, so that wouldn’t be a problem. Convincing another rule of higher power to accept the legal fiction is a different matter, and why I don’t think this would work in general without a high powered enabling rule. In this specific case, that isn’t a problem because everything is self contained and no other rule needs to take notice of the legal fiction. -Aris > > >
Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo
On 8/4/19 1:23 AM, James Cook wrote: Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors. A player CAN Reach into the Past by announcement at any time. If a player Communes the Wheel at a time T, and does not Reach into the Past in the four days following T, then at time T the value of the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e specified. I've been grappling with this for a while now, and I'm not sure that this works. (Read: very, very unsure. It took me a while to decide to even send this message, and I've started writing and then discarded something like it several times.) Rule 2141 reads, in part: A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally, and is always taking effect. A rule's content takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope. This is the only place that states that the Rules actually take effect, and when they do so. Given the specification "at time T", I don't think that a Rule can point to an arbitrary time and say "disregard what time it is now, I'm taking effect _then_". -- Jason Cobb
Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 21:04, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Actually, I wonder if we should think about some kind of "debugging" > mechanism for victories. Something like "when a win method is first > implemented (some mechanism, probably involving Agoran Consent, for > figuring out whether the first win was due to a win as intended or due > to finding a bug)". If it was "win as intended" then champion, > otherwise you get a "debugging" title. After a certain amount of time > that "debugging" goes away and it's a straight win - if you find a > loophole that nobody's spotted at the beginning, you deserve the full > win. For Clairvoyant Roshambo in particular, what if the first version said you gain 2 Coins for winning a round and lose 2 for losing a round, and once that seems to be working, switch to Roshambo Score and some big reward (maybe winning Agora) if your Score reaches 10? More specifically, I suggest Playing Roshambo be a fee-based action costing 2 Coins, and 4 days after playing, you earn 0, 2 or 4 Coins depending on what the outcome was. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo
> Random "I" after "then at time T". > > Jason Cobb Thanks, should be fixed in the draft I just published. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo
> Okay, a few things. > > * Defining “unconditional announcement” is probably overkill; any sane > judge would arrive at that that anyway, and it adds a bit to bloat. > * You should probably say "Roshambo Score is an integer player switch" (R > 2509) > * You should probably say "increased by 1" and "decreased by 1" (or > incremented and decremented) instead of redefining those terms. (R2509) > * I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald > to give the patent title of "Time Lord" > * I agree that this almost certainly works in this limited case. > > -Aris Thanks for the comments! Updated draft below. I left the win alone for now; will possibly follow up on the new thread. I plan to wait at least until after the birthday tournament before submitting this. AI: 1 Co-authors: Aris, Jason Cobb Text: Enact a new power-0.5 rule titled "Clairvoyant Roshambo", with the following text. At every time, the Roshambo Wheel is set to exactly one of Rock, Paper or Scissors. When the Rules do not say that its value changes, it stays the same. If it would otherwise not be set to a value, it is set to Rock. To perform an action "by unconditional announcement" is to perform it by announcement and not specify any condition upon which the action depends in that announcement. Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors. A player CAN Reach into the Past by announcement at any time. If a player Communes the Wheel at a time T, and does not Reach into the Past in the four days following T, then at time T the value of the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e specified. Rock beats Scissors, Scissors beats Paper, and Paper beats Rock. Roshambo Score is an integer player switch. Once per Agoran week, each player CAN Play Roshambo by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors, but only if e has not Communed with the Wheel in the past 4 days. When e does so: * If e specifies a value that beats the current value of the Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is increased by 1. * If e specifies a value that is beaten by the current value of the Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is decreased by 1. The Medium is an office, and the recordkeepor of Roshambo Score. A player with a Roshambo Score of at least 10 CAN Transcend Time by announcement. When e does so, e wins the game, and all instances of the Roshambo Score switch are flipped to 0. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Sustained Worship
On 8/4/19 12:56 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: [This is not a challenge, and is not sent to the public forum] By my reading, by this rule each contest message must contain one message _per Agoran God_. Is there a defined set of Agoran Gods anywhere? Because if not, there might be an issue. Never mind, I'm blind, please ignore me. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Sustained Worship
On 8/4/19 12:49 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
I create the following Fantasy Rule: {
The final paragraph of each contest message shall contain a message of
praise to each Agoran God mentioned previously in a contest message, plus
one not mentioned previously.
}
[This is not a challenge, and is not sent to the public forum]
By my reading, by this rule each contest message must contain one
message _per Agoran God_. Is there a defined set of Agoran Gods
anywhere? Because if not, there might be an issue.
--
Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] I submit myself to the Agoran Gods!
On 8/4/19 12:24 AM, Rebecca wrote: I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I join the FRC and create the following rule O Hark, the commandments of the LORD are upon us! The LORD demanding the respect he deserves, the LORD hereby decrees that all references to Agoran Gods shall refer to em in ALL CAPITALS. Praise the LORD [This is not a challenge, and is not sent to the public forum] Does this make it impossible for new contestants to legally join? If all references to the Agoran Gods must be in all capitals, then the header "I submit myself to the Agoran Gods!" must be transformed to "I submit myself to the AGORAN GODS!", but that might (?) violate my Fantasy Rule. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification CFJ
On 8/3/19 9:58 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Excerpt from Rule 2202 ("Ratification Without Objection"):
Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a public document,
specifying its scope.
Whoops, I changed the statement while I was drafting and I no longer
actually use this as evidence. H. Arbitor, feel free to exclude it.
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/2019 4:42 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 8/3/19 7:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> We added "rules to the contrary notwithstanding" to >> R2140 to solve that - but R2140 still only applies to instruments below >> power-3. > > > How does that solve the problem? If I understand the issue correctly, the > power-1 rule wouldn't be blocked by R2140, since it wouldn't be modifying a > "substantive aspect" of the proposal (it wouldn't be changing the proposal > itself at all), it would just happen to say that the proposal's effects > would be INEFFECTIVE. Whether or not a proposal clause is prohibited from takes effect certainly "affects the instrument's operation" because the taking effect *is* its operation. "Any aspect" includes what its text is allowed to do in a given situation, not just the contents of its text. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/19 7:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: We added "rules to the contrary notwithstanding" to R2140 to solve that - but R2140 still only applies to instruments below power-3. How does that solve the problem? If I understand the issue correctly, the power-1 rule wouldn't be blocked by R2140, since it wouldn't be modifying a "substantive aspect" of the proposal (it wouldn't be changing the proposal itself at all), it would just happen to say that the proposal's effects would be INEFFECTIVE. Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/2019 3:57 PM, Nich Evans wrote: >> R849 clearly prohibits the registration. The "Comptrollor" ban we added >> in R2140 recently to prevent lower-powered rules from prohibiting proposal >> clauses in higher-powered proposals doesn't apply, because R2140 includes >> the "below the power of this rule" qualifier and R849 is power 3. >> >> -G. >> >> > Not sure I follow? R2140 is P3. R106 "Adopting Proposals" and R2350 > "Proposals" are both also P3, so not less. They should be able to set > something to P>3, right? Am I missing something? A Proposal with P>3 is still subject to R106's "Except as prohibited by other rules" clause in terms of a particular clause taking effect. R849 does the prohibiting for registration before 30 days. There's no method for a power 3.1 proposal "beating out" a Power-3 Rule due to a conflict - R106 just straight up says "if there's a prohibition, the clause doesn't take effect." If the proposal created a power 3.1 rule that said "nch is registered" then we could use rule 1030, but that's not what the clause does. A recent-ish CFJ (can't find it this minute but I'll look harder) found that since R106 had numerical precedence over R2140 (before R2140 was amended), R106 even allowed for a power-1 rule to impose a prohibition on a clause in a power-4 proposal. We added "rules to the contrary notwithstanding" to R2140 to solve that - but R2140 still only applies to instruments below power-3. Since everything in this case is power 3+, that doesn't help. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/19 2:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote: On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: The below CFJ is 3764. I assign it to D. Margaux. === CFJ 3764 === If a proposal purporting to register nch was adopted now, then one second later, e would be bound by the rules. == Caller:Murphy Judge: D. Margaux == History: Called by Murphy: 28 Jul 2019 19:03:42 Assigned to D. Margaux: [now] == Judged FALSE. NCH voluntarily deregistered less than 30 days ago. Under Rule 849, if a player does that, then "e CANNOT register or be registered for 30 days." In my opinion, a proposal "purporting to register nch" would constitute an attempt to have nch "be registered" less than 30 days after his voluntary deregistration. That attempt necessarily fails under Rule 849. If it's False, it's False because of an interaction with the Power system, or because I had not consented (which was the original question's intent I think). Even if this is the right judgment it should be reconsidered to include those lines of inquiry. -- Nich Evans
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/19 2:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 8/3/2019 12:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > Judged FALSE. NCH voluntarily deregistered less than 30 days ago. Under > Rule 849, if a player does that, then "e CANNOT register or be registered > for 30 days." In my opinion, a proposal "purporting to register nch" would > constitute an attempt to have nch "be registered" less than 30 days after > his voluntary deregistration. That attempt necessarily fails under Rule > 849. Oh, duh. Of course Proposal 8227 won't work to register nch despite being power-3.1, regardless of nch's consent. R106: 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. R849 clearly prohibits the registration. The "Comptrollor" ban we added in R2140 recently to prevent lower-powered rules from prohibiting proposal clauses in higher-powered proposals doesn't apply, because R2140 includes the "below the power of this rule" qualifier and R849 is power 3. -G. Not sure I follow? R2140 is P3. R106 "Adopting Proposals" and R2350 "Proposals" are both also P3, so not less. They should be able to set something to P>3, right? Am I missing something? -- Nich Evans
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/19 2:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote: In my opinion, a proposal "purporting to register nch" would constitute an attempt to have nch "be registered" less than 30 days after his voluntary deregistration. That attempt necessarily fails under Rule 849. Please use spivak or gender neutral 'they' in the future. -- Nich Evans
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3761 Assigned to G.
1. A party to this contract CAN cease being a contract by announcement. Whoops, just realized I wrote this. I cease being a contract :P (this does nothing, doubly so because this isn't to the public forum).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3761 Assigned to G.
On 8/3/2019 11:06 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/3/19 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> In the current situation, Clause 3 of the contract successfully defines a
>> currency. By default (if there were no further clauses), the POSSIBLE
>> currency actions are in R2577, and include destruction and transfer of
>> currencies by announcement, but not creation. Clauses 4 and 5, taken as a
>> whole, fail to specify when and how an asset CAN be created, so no
>> creation is possible (again, that the default agrees with Clause 5 is a
>> side-effect). Therefore, this CFJ is FALSE.
>>
> Although I'm disappointed, I don't think I can poke a hole in this one.
>
> Maybe I will end up CFJing on the agent of ratification w/o objection.
Yeah, when I set this up with you I thought it would be a long discussion
about whether contract precedence should be forwards or backwards or whether
there were other general interpretation principles that could apply (with a
good chance of a "nope - this is paradoxical" result). The importance of
the exact Rule link language ('specify') only occurred to me this morning.
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: No August zombie auction for now
Hello my bruddah and sistahs, please make way for my infinite swagger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_izvAbhExY On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 6:04 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 8/1/2019 8:48 AM, James Cook wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 15:46, James Cook wrote: > >> > >> No zombie auction is necessary right now under R1885. This > >> announcement is required by that rule. > > Crud - I'd meant to return my zombie yesterday to trigger an auction and > completely forgot (though no biggie for me personally if you do one sooner > versus wait until Sept). -G. > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/2019 12:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > Judged FALSE. NCH voluntarily deregistered less than 30 days ago. Under > Rule 849, if a player does that, then "e CANNOT register or be registered > for 30 days." In my opinion, a proposal "purporting to register nch" would > constitute an attempt to have nch "be registered" less than 30 days after > his voluntary deregistration. That attempt necessarily fails under Rule > 849. Oh, duh. Of course Proposal 8227 won't work to register nch despite being power-3.1, regardless of nch's consent. R106: 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. R849 clearly prohibits the registration. The "Comptrollor" ban we added in R2140 recently to prevent lower-powered rules from prohibiting proposal clauses in higher-powered proposals doesn't apply, because R2140 includes the "below the power of this rule" qualifier and R849 is power 3. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3761 Assigned to G.
On 8/3/19 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: In the current situation, Clause 3 of the contract successfully defines a currency. By default (if there were no further clauses), the POSSIBLE currency actions are in R2577, and include destruction and transfer of currencies by announcement, but not creation. Clauses 4 and 5, taken as a whole, fail to specify when and how an asset CAN be created, so no creation is possible (again, that the default agrees with Clause 5 is a side-effect). Therefore, this CFJ is FALSE. Although I'm disappointed, I don't think I can poke a hole in this one. Maybe I will end up CFJing on the agent of ratification w/o objection. Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3761 Assigned to G.
=== CFJ 3761 === A party to the contract in evidence CAN create a gift by some method. == Proto-judgement (used up my Motion so want to proto this first) First, Contracts as subject to R2125 as Players are – It's quite possible for a contract text to contain an "I say I did", and just because a contract says a regulated action CAN be done, doesn't mean that the Rules enable it to do so. Second, legal texts are not typically read as logical statements – if two portions of a contract disagree with each other, the clauses are "in conflict" with each other. This does not automatically result in a paradox, it simply means that a reasonable process may be applied in an attempt to resolve the conflict. The question is, can a reasonable process for contract conflict resolution be inferred from the current Rules and applied to the contract in question? It would be perfectly reasonable, on one hand, to suggest that earlier clauses take precedence over later ones, as a general rule for Agoran legal texts. This is supported by Rule 1030 – while R1030 clearly only applies to Agoran Rules, it could be argued that Agorans, when agreeing to be bound within Agora, assume that legal texts are read similarly. On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to apply R2240, as well, and give later clauses precedence. After all, a single contract is more like a "single rule" then a full ruleset; further, in general interpretation of contracts, "later" amendments often (though not always) take precedence over earlier ones (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_repeal). In the future, a judge might decide that one or the other of those options is a better reading. However, choosing between a forwards and backwards precedence order doesn't get us out of the broader issue of contract paradoxes – given that it's possible to write text where the very sentence structure (within a single clause) is inseparably paradoxical (e.g. "If this statement is false, then a party CAN do X"), is there a way to disambiguate straight-up paradoxical statements/conflicts in contracts? It depends – on the particular enabling rule that enables the particular type of contract interaction. For currencies, then, it depends on this part of R2166: An asset's backing document can generally specify when and how that asset is created, destroyed, and transferred. Here, the operative word is that the contract (as a whole document) is "specifying" how things can happen. While this isn't as strong a standard as "unambiguously and clearly specifying" as required for by-announcement actions (R478), it is still a standard that can be informed by our practices around announcements (e.g. noting "I say I dids" or requiring that conditionals in contracts be resolvable with reasonable effort from available information). For a pertinent example, a Player, in a single message, announces: "Disclaimer: this message contains no actions. I do X. Disclaimer: the first disclaimer is false." With no explicit manner in the rules to resolve such conflicts between disclaimers, the whole thing is thrown out as too ambiguous to succeed at specification (while this makes the first disclaimer true, that is a side- effect). Even if we drop "unambiguously and clearly" from the standard for "specification", sufficient ambiguity in a specification attempt will lead to it simply being thrown out - while Agora has gone through a degree of judicial drift (without rules support) in what constitutes "specify", a foundational judgement is found in CFJ 1307 highlighted that if a "specification" does not contain or refer to full necessary information, or contains sufficient ambiguity, it is not (in general) a specification. Since the specification has to be performed by the backing document as a whole, if internal clauses conflict in setting out the specification, without providing a mechanism for conflict resolution – the net effect is that the clauses fail at specification, and are simply void and without effect due to ambiguity. In the current situation, Clause 3 of the contract successfully defines a currency. By default (if there were no further clauses), the POSSIBLE currency actions are in R2577, and include destruction and transfer of currencies by announcement, but not creation. Clauses 4 and 5, taken as a whole, fail to specify when and how an asset CAN be created, so no creation is possible (again, that the default agrees with Clause 5 is a side-effect). Therefore, this CFJ is FALSE. It's important to emphasize, finally, that this interpretation depends on the operative phrases in the enabling rule; that is "specify" in R2166. As a counter-example, R1742 has this clause: Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in accordance with that contract. In t
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement in CFJ 3765
On Sat, 2019-08-03 at 16:19 +, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-08-03 at 11:12 -0400, D. Margaux wrote:
> > 2c. Enact a rule of power sufficient to give effect to its
> > terms
> > that states:
> >
> > "Any attempt to enact this rule is IMPOSSIBLE."
>
> That example isn't impossible to enact even in the present gamestate.
> You could write a proposal "Create a new Power-1 rule {Any attempt to
> enact this rule is IMPOSSIBLE}", and it would succeed and enact the
> rule (without even violating AIAN!).
Oh, if you want it to outpower AIAN, you'd have to repeal that first.
(However, that's the only issue with enacting it at, say, Power 4;
there's no power sufficiently high for a rule to have an effect on the
gamestate before it's enacted, i.e. despite not existing. Otherwise,
you could change the gamestate arbitrarily simply by mentioning the
possibility that such a rule might exist.)
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement in CFJ 3765
On Sat, 2019-08-03 at 11:12 -0400, D. Margaux wrote:
> 2c. Enact a rule of power sufficient to give effect to its terms
> that states:
>
> "Any attempt to enact this rule is IMPOSSIBLE."
That example isn't impossible to enact even in the present gamestate.
You could write a proposal "Create a new Power-1 rule {Any attempt to
enact this rule is IMPOSSIBLE}", and it would succeed and enact the
rule (without even violating AIAN!).
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3765 Assigned to Jason Cobb
On 8/2/2019 6:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > I don't need to make anything up, the answer to the question of what a > rule change is lies in R105. There is some ambiguity in R105 in terms of "compound" rule changes within a single Rule, though it may not be relevant to your CFJ at all. For example. Most people would read the following as a "single" rule change: Amend Rule X by replacing "A" with "B" and by replacing "C" with "D". But would take the following to be two rule changes, even if they occurred right after each other in the same proposal: Amend Rule X by replacing "A" with "B". Amend Rule X by replacing "C" with "D". And then there's this: Amend Rule X by replacing "A" with "B" then by replacing "C B" with "C D". (the first part has to happen 'before' the second part because the first part creates new instances of "C B" to replace- so is that one rule change or two?) -G.
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement in CFJ 3765
On 8/3/19 10:39 AM, Nich Evans wrote: On 8/3/19 10:12 AM, D. Margaux wrote: On Aug 2, 2019, at 11:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: The caller also provides this as an example: "Repeal Rule 1698 (Ossification). Enact a power 100 rule that procides, 'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.'" Again, this is not a rule change. This time it consists of two rule changes, and it is possible to cause each one of them in a four week period, as described above. A couple responses to the proto judgement: 1. The Ossification rule says "arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted"--that's plural changeS/proposalS. Based on the text of the rule, Agora is Ossified if there is a combination of rule changes and/or proposals that are IMPOSSIBLE to adopt in a four week period. And I think it's undisputed that there are combinations of rule changes that are IMPOSSIBLE. For example, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to enact the following pairs of "rule changes": The rule says "changes", not "sequence of changes". Any number of proposals could be inserted before or between your examples to make them work; the rule does not check for specific sets. Or to put it more prosaically, the rule is checking for changes as endpoints. It doesn't care how you get to any given change, as long as a possible route exists. When it says "changes" it's just talking about multiple separate endpoints, not a route. -- Nich Evans
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement in CFJ 3765
On 8/3/19 10:12 AM, D. Margaux wrote: On Aug 2, 2019, at 11:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: The caller also provides this as an example: "Repeal Rule 1698 (Ossification). Enact a power 100 rule that procides, 'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.'" Again, this is not a rule change. This time it consists of two rule changes, and it is possible to cause each one of them in a four week period, as described above. A couple responses to the proto judgement: 1. The Ossification rule says "arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted"--that's plural changeS/proposalS. Based on the text of the rule, Agora is Ossified if there is a combination of rule changes and/or proposals that are IMPOSSIBLE to adopt in a four week period. And I think it's undisputed that there are combinations of rule changes that are IMPOSSIBLE. For example, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to enact the following pairs of "rule changes": The rule says "changes", not "sequence of changes". Any number of proposals could be inserted before or between your examples to make them work; the rule does not check for specific sets. -- Nich Evans
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement in CFJ 3765
On 8/3/19 11:12 AM, D. Margaux wrote: The Ossification rule says "arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted"--that's plural changeS/proposalS. Based on the text of the rule, Agora is Ossified if there is a combination of rule changes and/or proposals that are IMPOSSIBLE to adopt in a four week period. I disagree with this reading. I believe that if the author of the rule wanted to enforce that any arbitrary set of rule changes must be enable to be enacted, e would have written "arbitrary groups of rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary groups of proposals to be adopted" (or something equivalent). 2. I believe there are single rule changes that are also IMPOSSIBLE, i.e., where attempts to perform that single rule change would be unsuccessful. For example: 2a. Enact a Rule of power sufficient to give effect to its terms that states: "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Ruleset consists of this rule, the Ruleset that was in existence on 1 August 2019, and nothing else. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, further rule changes are IMPOSSIBLE." That's not impossible to enact. AIAN says: If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. If any other single change or inseperable group of changes to the gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Assuming you've prepared the ruleset for enacting this change (probably by repealing AIAN), then you absolutely can cause this rule change. AIAN only prohibits changes that would prospectively cause ossification. Once AIAN takes effect, there would be no further changes to the gamestate (or proposals to enact) that AIAN prevents, so your proposed Rule would stand. 2b. Enact a Rule of power sufficient to give effect to its terms that states: "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Ruleset consists of this Rule and the rules in existence on 1 August 2019. It is and always has been IMPOSSIBLE to enact this Rule by any means." Trying to restore the ruleset to its current state doesn't change anything for the same reasons as described above. Rule 2141 says: A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally, and is always taking effect. A rule's content takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope. It does not say that a Rule ever takes effect in the past. I don't believe that the retroactive application works here, so it is indeed possible to enact this rule change. And this wouldn't trigger AIAN even under the current ruleset because to enact a rule is to create a new rule (R105), and thus to enact a rule that already exists (whatever that means) is not a rule change. 2c. Enact a rule of power sufficient to give effect to its terms that states: "Any attempt to enact this rule is IMPOSSIBLE." This doesn't work for the same reasons as described above, the Rule would never be taking effect at a time at which it could prevent the rule chagne to enact it. Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement in CFJ 3765
Sorry, sent this too early. Another email coming soon. Jason Cobb On 8/3/19 11:16 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: On 8/3/19 11:12 AM, D. Margaux wrote: The Ossification rule says "arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted"--that's plural changeS/proposalS. Based on the text of the rule, Agora is Ossified if there is a combination of rule changes and/or proposals that are IMPOSSIBLE to adopt in a four week period.
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement in CFJ 3765
On 8/3/19 11:12 AM, D. Margaux wrote: The Ossification rule says "arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted"--that's plural changeS/proposalS. Based on the text of the rule, Agora is Ossified if there is a combination of rule changes and/or proposals that are IMPOSSIBLE to adopt in a four week period.
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement in CFJ 3765
> On Aug 2, 2019, at 11:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > The caller also provides this as an example: > >> "Repeal Rule 1698 (Ossification). >> Enact a power 100 rule that procides, 'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules, >> rules to the contrary notwithstanding.'" > > Again, this is not a rule change. This time it consists of two rule changes, > and it is possible to cause each one of them in a four week period, as > described above. A couple responses to the proto judgement: 1. The Ossification rule says "arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted"--that's plural changeS/proposalS. Based on the text of the rule, Agora is Ossified if there is a combination of rule changes and/or proposals that are IMPOSSIBLE to adopt in a four week period. And I think it's undisputed that there are combinations of rule changes that are IMPOSSIBLE. For example, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to enact the following pairs of "rule changes": 1a. Enact a rule of sufficient power to give effect to its terms that states: "No further rule changes can be made." Then enact a rule that states: "Foo." 1b. Enact a rule of sufficient power to give effect to its terms that states: "The Ruleset is restored to what it was on 2 August 2019." Then enact a power 4 rule that states, "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any further rule changes are IMPOSSIBLE." 2. I believe there are single rule changes that are also IMPOSSIBLE, i.e., where attempts to perform that single rule change would be unsuccessful. For example: 2a. Enact a Rule of power sufficient to give effect to its terms that states: "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Ruleset consists of this rule, the Ruleset that was in existence on 1 August 2019, and nothing else. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, further rule changes are IMPOSSIBLE." 2b. Enact a Rule of power sufficient to give effect to its terms that states: "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Ruleset consists of this Rule and the rules in existence on 1 August 2019. It is and always has been IMPOSSIBLE to enact this Rule by any means." 2c. Enact a rule of power sufficient to give effect to its terms that states: "Any attempt to enact this rule is IMPOSSIBLE."
Re: DIS: Email change
On 8/3/19 9:08 AM, Nich Evans wrote: In a decluttering effort, I'm going to start using this address. Confirming that I sent the above message.
DIS: Email change
In a decluttering effort, I'm going to start using this address. -- Nich Evans
