ais523 wrote: >I would strongly prefer it if rule 2149 was amended the other way, to >make failed attempts to perform acts legal
As has been repeatedly pointed out, failing attempts at speech actions can still avoid false statements, provided that the statement carries an appropriate qualifier. Formulations such as "If possible I do X." and "I attempt to do X." have been commonly used in situations where someone is aware of a reason why the action might not be possible, and no objection to this has been raised. In the specific case of registering, "I wish to register." will cause registration if it is possible while still being a true statement if it is not possible. Furthermore *inadvertant* failures to act are not proscribed by any past, present, or proposed version of R2149. Reasonable honest errors are legal, and there is no proposal on the table to change that. > (e.g. what happens if a >contest is decontestified but the contestmaster still has to try to >award points). If the contest requires em to *attempt* to award points, e can say "If possible, I award 5 points to ais523.". This satisfies the contractual obligation without offending R2149. If the contest requires em to *actually* award points, it is impossible for em to satisfy that obligation, regardless of R2149. > I am a roleplayer, among other things, and attempting to >perform actions is very distinct from making statements This isn't a roleplaying game, and we don't have avatars. Perhaps more to the point, we don't have a GM who judges the effects of every attempt to act. In a code nomic, the next example you raised, the implementation acts much like a GM for these purposes. Agora is not like those situations. The business of Agora is conducted by free-form speech, and many things are achieved by pure speech acts. We have arranged the rules on this so that the speech that achieves the act is also a correct notification of the act. We have no dictatorial GM, but track the game state cooperatively through these notifications, and so we rightly prohibit dishonesty regarding that state. Speech acts are, in this respect, no different from any other kind of speech. >Hmm... I seem to have a veto right now and rule 2149 is power 1. I don't >really like using vetos, but now might seem to be a good time. You can't veto the continued existence of the rule as it already is, and no one is proposing a fundamental change to it, so your influence on the legality of speech acts is limited. >this be massively against the Agoran Spirit if I try? Would people just >try to make it democratic? We don't have any precedent for the use of the current veto prerogative. I believe the veto is historically related to anti-invasion preparations, and for those who remember the wars a veto on internal political grounds might seem abusive. You could make yourself unpopular, especially if you veto routinely, and might perhaps trigger attempts to reduce the prerogative's power. Personally I favour the abolition of all prerogatives, and of the speakerhood. I'm not likely to have much opinion about particular exercises of the prerogatives. -zefram
