Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On 1/16/2020 6:42 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 21:39, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > maybe argue that > we should eliminate actions done other than by announcement I would like to keep (and in fact use more of) the "Notice" mechanism - I think it's convenient in some cases to say "person posts a notice meeting X conditions to be a valid Notice of X, if the Notice of X is valid, this whole list of changes occurs." Also, I like the flavor. The Honour version has been strangely trouble-free as methods go, especially given (or perhaps because of) how lightweight it is. I really shouldn't tempt fate by saying that... -G.
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
ais523 wrote: > This strikes me as an almost identical situation to a rule stating that > a player CAN perform a given action, but not specifying a mechanism to > do so. I'm not up to date with our existing precedents on that, > though. I'm not altogether sure that it is, actually. R2545 says: An Auction is a way for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency. which, I believe D. Margaux's judgement argues, is equivalent to: Entities CAN give away items in exchange for a currency by Auction. You can agree or disagree with eir interpretation, obviously, but I don't see how it's possible to argue that eir interpretation doesn't provide a mechanism. The mechanism is an "Auction". -twg
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 7:18 PM AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 19:07 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > You're half right. Regulated actions have been around forever, but > > after I ruled in my manifestly terrible opinion (TBH, a frustratingly > > large portion of my opinions have been manifestly terrible) in CFJ > > 3557 that SHALL implied CAN and CAN without a method implied CAN by > > announcement, G. submitted a fix proposal. Rule 2125, "Regulated > > Actions", now says "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as > > described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly > > specified in the Rules for performing the given action." This means > > we now say that "CAN" without a "by announcement" is without effect. > > The CAN and the by announcement can be miles (or kilometers) away > > from each other, but they have to both exist. > > I don't think a CAN without a "by announcement" would be without effect > in a rule that outpowers Rule 2125. Admittedly, not all that many rules > do. Ehh. You could see it as a R217 reasonable clarification, since it would be solely disambiguatory between two possible interpretations. In any case, no rule with power greater than 3 contains a CAN. -Aris
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 19:07 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > You're half right. Regulated actions have been around forever, but > after I ruled in my manifestly terrible opinion (TBH, a frustratingly > large portion of my opinions have been manifestly terrible) in CFJ > 3557 that SHALL implied CAN and CAN without a method implied CAN by > announcement, G. submitted a fix proposal. Rule 2125, "Regulated > Actions", now says "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as > described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly > specified in the Rules for performing the given action." This means > we now say that "CAN" without a "by announcement" is without effect. > The CAN and the by announcement can be miles (or kilometers) away > from each other, but they have to both exist. I don't think a CAN without a "by announcement" would be without effect in a rule that outpowers Rule 2125. Admittedly, not all that many rules do. -- ais523
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 6:45 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 1/16/20 9:39 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:38, AIS523--- via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 15:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > >> wrote: > >>> Now here we are a third time. Whatever we can say about CFJ 3694, > >>> the judgement is suitably unintuitive such that almost no one reading > >>> the rules without this precedent/context thinks that zombie auctions > >>> actually work... > >> This strikes me as an almost identical situation to a rule stating that > >> a player CAN perform a given action, but not specifying a mechanism to > >> do so. I'm not up to date with our existing precedents on that, > >> though. > >> > >> I'm reminded of the concept of ω-inconsistency in logic: a system is > >> ω-inconsistent if it holds a statement of the form "some integer has > >> property X" to be true, but also holds statements of the form "N does > >> not have propety X" to be true for every specific integer N. A rule > >> stating that something is possible without specifying a mechanism to > >> perform it seems to introduce an ω-inconsistency into Agora.] > >> > > The logical fix, perhaps, is to make announcement the default mode of > > action, including perhaps allowing anyone to cause a non-person to do > > something it is required to do, by announcement . > > > > -Alexis > > > I think I remember hearing that the concept of regulated actions was > created because a judge ruled the other way - the Rules say that someone > "CAN" do it (even if not providing a method), so who are we to say that > that person can't do it? > > It's very possible I'm misremembering this, but if I'm not, I'm certain > someone else can describe it better than I can. You're half right. Regulated actions have been around forever, but after I ruled in my manifestly terrible opinion (TBH, a frustratingly large portion of my opinions have been manifestly terrible) in CFJ 3557 that SHALL implied CAN and CAN without a method implied CAN by announcement, G. submitted a fix proposal. Rule 2125, "Regulated Actions", now says "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action." This means we now say that "CAN" without a "by announcement" is without effect. The CAN and the by announcement can be miles (or kilometers) away from each other, but they have to both exist. -Aris
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 21:45, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I think I remember hearing that the concept of regulated actions was > created because a judge ruled the other way - the Rules say that someone > "CAN" do it (even if not providing a method), so who are we to say that > that person can't do it? > > It's very possible I'm misremembering this, but if I'm not, I'm certain > someone else can describe it better than I can. > It's a longstanding rule of statutory interpretation, alongside such other nice interpretation guides like "lists are assumed to be exhaustive unless explicitly stated otherwise", and "every word has meaning", but Agora has never incorporated real-world statutory interpretation into its jurisprudence. So indeed, without such a rule being made explicit or otherwise incorporated, it does need to be specified somehow!
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On 1/16/20 9:39 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:38, AIS523--- via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 15:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> Now here we are a third time. Whatever we can say about CFJ 3694, >>> the judgement is suitably unintuitive such that almost no one reading >>> the rules without this precedent/context thinks that zombie auctions >>> actually work... >> This strikes me as an almost identical situation to a rule stating that >> a player CAN perform a given action, but not specifying a mechanism to >> do so. I'm not up to date with our existing precedents on that, >> though. >> >> I'm reminded of the concept of ω-inconsistency in logic: a system is >> ω-inconsistent if it holds a statement of the form "some integer has >> property X" to be true, but also holds statements of the form "N does >> not have propety X" to be true for every specific integer N. A rule >> stating that something is possible without specifying a mechanism to >> perform it seems to introduce an ω-inconsistency into Agora.] >> > The logical fix, perhaps, is to make announcement the default mode of > action, including perhaps allowing anyone to cause a non-person to do > something it is required to do, by announcement . > > -Alexis I think I remember hearing that the concept of regulated actions was created because a judge ruled the other way - the Rules say that someone "CAN" do it (even if not providing a method), so who are we to say that that person can't do it? It's very possible I'm misremembering this, but if I'm not, I'm certain someone else can describe it better than I can. -- Jason Cobb
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 21:39, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:38, AIS523--- via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 15:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> > Now here we are a third time. Whatever we can say about CFJ 3694, >> > the judgement is suitably unintuitive such that almost no one reading >> > the rules without this precedent/context thinks that zombie auctions >> > actually work... >> >> This strikes me as an almost identical situation to a rule stating that >> a player CAN perform a given action, but not specifying a mechanism to >> do so. I'm not up to date with our existing precedents on that, >> though. >> >> I'm reminded of the concept of ω-inconsistency in logic: a system is >> ω-inconsistent if it holds a statement of the form "some integer has >> property X" to be true, but also holds statements of the form "N does >> not have propety X" to be true for every specific integer N. A rule >> stating that something is possible without specifying a mechanism to >> perform it seems to introduce an ω-inconsistency into Agora.] >> > > The logical fix, perhaps, is to make announcement the default mode of > action, including perhaps allowing anyone to cause a non-person to do > something it is required to do, by announcement . > > -Alexis > In the alternative, perhaps we should codify ISIDTID and maybe argue that we should eliminate actions done other than by announcement, or at least clean up existing examples. Official reports, for instance, would hardly be hard-done by by requiring just a tad more explicitness (or allowing a subject line to imply the announcement, say), and that might help clean up our messy reporting controversy. Similarly, it's not actually clear to me how, exactly, motions of no confidence work, since the rule provides two contradictory methods of performing the action (one by sending a public message with a given subject line, and one by announcement, once you unravel the definitions). -Alexis
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:38, AIS523--- via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 15:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Now here we are a third time. Whatever we can say about CFJ 3694, > > the judgement is suitably unintuitive such that almost no one reading > > the rules without this precedent/context thinks that zombie auctions > > actually work... > > This strikes me as an almost identical situation to a rule stating that > a player CAN perform a given action, but not specifying a mechanism to > do so. I'm not up to date with our existing precedents on that, > though. > > I'm reminded of the concept of ω-inconsistency in logic: a system is > ω-inconsistent if it holds a statement of the form "some integer has > property X" to be true, but also holds statements of the form "N does > not have propety X" to be true for every specific integer N. A rule > stating that something is possible without specifying a mechanism to > perform it seems to introduce an ω-inconsistency into Agora.] > The logical fix, perhaps, is to make announcement the default mode of action, including perhaps allowing anyone to cause a non-person to do something it is required to do, by announcement . -Alexis
Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix
On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 15:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Now here we are a third time. Whatever we can say about CFJ 3694, > the judgement is suitably unintuitive such that almost no one reading > the rules without this precedent/context thinks that zombie auctions > actually work... This strikes me as an almost identical situation to a rule stating that a player CAN perform a given action, but not specifying a mechanism to do so. I'm not up to date with our existing precedents on that, though. I'm reminded of the concept of ω-inconsistency in logic: a system is ω-inconsistent if it holds a statement of the form "some integer has property X" to be true, but also holds statements of the form "N does not have propety X" to be true for every specific integer N. A rule stating that something is possible without specifying a mechanism to perform it seems to introduce an ω-inconsistency into Agora. -- ais523
