On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 12:35 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:22 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 12:18 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, ehird wrote:
> >> >> On 5 Oct 2008, at 14:41, Benjamin Schultz wrote:
> >> >>> That's odd... which rule is saying that an AI=3 proposal can affect a
> >> >>> P=4
> >> >>> rule?
> >> >> Rule 2140/0 (Power=3)
> >> >> is power 3. Thus AI=3 proposals are ominipotent.
> >> > So a power-4 Rule is amendable at AI-3, but not by just saying "the
> >> > following power-4 proposal is amended to read..."
> >> How do you get that? The rule says that "No entity with power below
> >> [3] can...modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with
> >> power greater than its own." It plainly does not apply to power-3
> >> instruments.
> > I submit the following proposal (AI=3.1, II=1, Title="This one probably
> > ought to fail..."):
> > {{{
> > Increase the power of rule 2140 to 3.1.
> > }}}
>
> There's very little practical difference betweet AI 3 and AI 3.1. If
> we're willing to allow AI 3.1 proposals to modify any rule, why not
> allow AI 3 proposals to do the same?
The proposal would actually subtly break lots of things, as the rules
that govern proposals would be unable to give an AI 3.1 proposal an
actual power of 3.1, due to only having a power of 3 themselves. As a
result, rule 2140 would probably end up completely unmodifiable, as
would the Town Fountain.
--
ais523
