On Jul 19, 2013, at 1:06 PM, omd wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Tanner Swett <swe...@mail.gvsu.edu> wrote: >> A proposal CANNOT amend Rule 104 "First Speaker" or Rule 2029 "Town >> Fountain" unless that proposal explicitly states, using the rule's title, >> that it is amending that rule. > > Probably ineffective due to precedence.
Rule 106 states, "Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies." So I don't see a precedence issue here. Hm, this seems like it could be scammed. If a rule of power 1.1 were enacted, stating, "A proposal with power greater than 1 CANNOT apply any changes", then Rule 106 would follow this instruction, thereby preventing proposals with greater power from taking effect. This "accidental deputy problem", where rule A unintentionally carries out the effect specified by rule B, seems to have happened a few times in Agora. Rule 105 seems like it may have the same problem: the power of a new rule is limited by "the maximum power permitted by other rules", suggesting that even a low-powered rule can place a cap on the maximum power of a new rule. Rule 1728 says that one of the conditions for a dependent action to be successfully resolved is that "Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules". This can only be interpreted as an intentional deputy situation, since Rule 1728 is at power 3, but Rule 2124, which defines Satisfaction, is at power 2. Rule 683 states that other rules can place constraints on the validity of ballots. Again, this seems like intentional deputyship, since Rule 2412 (power 2) places restrictions on the validity of ballots, even though Rule 683 is at power 3. Rule 991 states that a subclass of judicial case has features "as defined by other rules". Could a power-1 rule state that a Dictatorship Case is a class of judicial case, and one of its features is that upon being created, its power is immediately set to 2, then it immediately creates a power-2 rule giving Queen Davy a dictatorship? Maybe Rules 991 and 1728 could be exploited to escalate from power 1 to power 3. One of the features of a Confused Deputy Case is that its power is set to 2 and then it enacts a rule stating that if someone intends to ratify the existence of a rule giving Queen Davy a dictatorship, then Agora is Satisfied with that intent. —Machiavelli
