In that case, there would have been no officers while it had a higher power, but afterwards officers would return. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 9, 2017, at 3:54 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I checked the proposal history. There has been a time where Switches had > higher Power than Offices, making its switch not a switch, ergo, there have > been no Officeholders since (Possibly?). > > Of course this would screw over a lot of things, would it be so, but > everything we're doing wouldn't actually matter if everything has been bogus > since. > > Proto CFJ "After Proposal 5111 got enacted, there have been no Officeholders." > > Gratuitous Arguments: > - "Switches" (or at least the modern implementation of it, as it wasn't there > before) were Created by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007. You can see > that proposal here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08096.html, and > it says: > > Create a rule titled "Switches" with Power 2 and this text: > > "A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch, and > specify the following: (...) > 2. One or more possible values for instances of that switch, exactly one of > which is designated as the default. No other values are possible for > instances of that switch." > > - The Power of the Offices rule changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 > (Zefram), 13 August 2007. > > - Our Anti-Ossification protection didn't exist until Proposal 5536 (Murphy), > 7 June 2008, which added: > > "In the interest of safeguarding Agora's nomic-ness, if a change to the > gamestate would otherwise make it IMPOSSIBLE to make arbitrary rule changes > and/or adopt arbitrary proposals within a four-week period by any > combinations of actions by players, then that change is canceled and does not > occur, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding." > > - From the 2nd of August onwards, we have been in a state were there have > been no Officeholders, because Switches need a default, and Officeholders had > none, so it wasn't a switch. Proposal 5133, which would've solved the > problem, actually hasn't been enacted - because there need to be Office(s) to > do so (The Assesor, Promotor, etc). We didn't have the Anti-Ossification > rules to prevent this either (and if they did, then Proposal 5111 would've > actually never done anything, and we have never actually had our modern > Switches) > > Non-Proposal (and Non-Office dependent rule-changes in general, really) > Rule-changes aside, the Ruleset hasn't actually changed since the 2nd of > August 2007.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
