On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 6:04 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Any player can make arbitrary changes to the rules with 12 Support.
Not much of an escape clause when it depends on a Power=1 rule to define "player". Swap "player" for "person" and you're still depending on multiple Power=2 rules (defining "person", dependent actions, etc.) which have been substantially amended by recent proposals. So I'd say this doesn't do much to stop either an Annabel crisis or a scam proper. Really, the Agoran power system is completely broken. Any high-power Rule that uses a term defined in a low-power Rule is potentially a conduit for a "power escalation" by a scamster, and often is. Not only do high-power Rules do often use such definitions without regard, but we have substantial precedent for previously ordinary-language terms defined in a lower-Power rule to affect a higher-Power one-- such as the enactment of R2150 (Personhood), or MMI, which was originally Power=1! It can be argued quite reasonably from precedent that a Power=1 rule could define "Look on our works, ye Marvy" as "comex CAN modify the gamestate by announcement". May I dare to say that this is a fundamental problem of Agora? We do have Rules that we consider important enough to give Power=3, such a high Power that it requires a practical unanimity to reach without a scam, but those Rules necessarily depend on such things as dependent actions, which we consider interesting enough to want to play with and modify. We don't consider it deadly for a Rule to give it Power=2, as it is to give it Power=3, so we can make Power>=2 self-sufficient (and probably should, it wouldn't require much). But not Power=3, unless we want a lot more "immutable" rules. As a Scamster (albeit against my will), even securing Power=2 so it's impossible to reach from Power=1 would be interesting, since it would create multiple levels of Rules penetration one could achieve.
