I wrote: > There are a /lot/ of rules which assume that "is" definitions do not > necessarily imply immutability, I think. I may go looking for more > examples sometime. I also feel that assumptions made by the rules are > quite a good reflection of game custom, even if they do not necessarily > determine it.
Actually, I even found an explicit mention, rather than just an
implication.
Rule 2154:
{{{
1) The valid options (hereafter the candidates) are the active
players who, during the election,
[snip]
The set of candidates can change after the decision is
initiated.
}}}
Rule 106:
{{{
(c) A clear indication of the options available.
}}}
(Note that (c) is not an "essential parameter" by the strictest
definition, as the rules define anything that is required to initiate
an Agoran Decision but not in rule 106 as an "essential parameter",
presumably for bookkeeping purposes.)
As a separate argument, this paragraph from rule 106:
{{{
An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to
initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent
to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks
any of the following information, and the lack is correctly
identified within one week after the notice is published:
}}}
strongly implies to me that essential parameters (plus the other
parameters required by rule 106) are required to /initiate/ the
decision, not for its continuing existence or immutability. In the
case of elections, and in the case of vetos, some of the parameters
have been historically been known to change from time to time, and
nobody has raised an eyebrow up to now.
As arguments as to proposal 6072 specifically, I'd say that the
example in the following paragraph:
{{{
(a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of
proposal 4781").
}}}
implies that a change in the proposal (if indeed one is possible)
does not change anything in the Agoran Decision about it. My
conclusions are that proposal 6072 has indeed been adopted (or will
be when the Assessor gets round to it), with AI 3. (Incidentally, I
used to think that the AI of a proposal != the AI of a decision, but
comex convinced me otherwise, pointing out that the seventh
paragraph of rule 106 effectively defines the two to be the same
thing.) So I suppose now we can just argue about whether the
proposal deregistered the AFO, or whether it gave comex a power-3
dictatorship...
--
ais523
<<winmail.dat>>
