Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'd suggest revisiting the
>langauge of R1688 altogether. Maybe turn the noun (objects with
>power = "instruments") to verbs (actions with power = "commands").
I see a potentially neat way of doing this. We could enumerate explicitly
the type of provision that an instrument could have; the list would go
something like
(1) definition of terminology
(2) definition of a class of in-game entity
(3) instantaneous change to regulated attributes of entities
(4) conditional version of (3)
(5) regulation whereby under circumstances X provision Y applies
Class (3) is, I think, what you're calling a "command". The interesting
thing that comes out of this approach is that we can formalise
restrictions on the content of proposals. That it, proposals can *only*
contain provisions of type (3) and (4). Definitions and persistent
regulations can only appear in rules, or other types of instrument that
we track persistently.
Thus with P4898, consisting of a definition, it would be clear that this
is not proper proposal content and does not take effect, whereas the same
thing in a rule would be permitted. It would also make clear that the
"Goethe is deemed to be a banana" proposal would not have any effect.
I think this could provide a framework for creating other classes of
instrument that don't have the general scope of rules and proposals.
-zefram
