However, ratification would make it true and overrides the Rule Changes rule because with ratification it never changes anything, it makes things true instantaneously. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jul 9, 2017, at 7:22 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg00165.html > , it contains Proposal 5101, which passed and amended the whole rule on > August 1st and there was no other change until September - right at the > timeframe of the vulnerability. > > So I got the Ratification rules of back then over here: > > Any player CAN ratify any purported publication of all or part > of an official report, without objection. > > When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that > the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the > time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a > document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any > messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked, > or change the legality of any attempted action. > > Where part of an official report has been the subject of a > ratification, the date of the most recent such ratification is > part of the same official report. > > > > I also have the Rule Changes rules from back then, > http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg00002.html , via > Proposal 4940: > > Amend the rule titled "Rule Changes" to read: > > Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can, > as part of its effect, > > (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum of > the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting > to one if the enacting instrument does not specify, and the > maximum power permitted by other rules. The enacting instrument > may specify a title for the new rule, which if present shall > prevail. The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the > enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void. > > (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule, > and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it. > > (c) amend the text of a rule. > > (d) retitle a rule. > > (e) change the power of a rule. > > A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. > Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. > > Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that > change to be void and without effect. A variation in whitespace > or capitalization in the quotation of an existing rule does not > constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other > variation does. > > This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be created, > modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule > or cease to be a rule. > > > I believe that your way about how the Rule would've been added is that the > Ratification would've added it in, without an Assesor, would be via > Ratification, but with the stuff found here in my dredging, I don't believe > it would've worked. Adding that rule would've been a "rule change", and a "A > rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.". > > The Ratification of the Ruleset would've (attempted) to straight up made that > it was true that the rule was in there, but not that it had been actually > added at any time or actually *enacted*, which is the only mechanism via the > which the rule could change. > > Additionally, such a Ratification would've attempted to Ratify the Ruleset > (as in, the whole Ruleset), at once. But it wouldn't have been able to > happen, because, " The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the > enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.", and since > it would've attempted to specify the number of the would-be new rule, the > attempts of Ratification of the Ruleset would've all been null and void. > > It might be good to raise a CFJ at this point but please let me know if > there's anything else that might cancel what I've pointed out. > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > The ruleset has probably been ratified since Proposal 5111 resolving that > problem. > ---- > 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
