I could write an Agency with that same thing + output, for example, something like:
---*--- Any agent may take 1 shiny from Cuddlebeam and the following clause has no effect. Any agent may take 2 shiny from Cuddlebeam and the previous clause has no effect. ---*--- Then summon a CFJ for if someone can take 1 shiny or 2. Pretty much a simulation of what would happen with such a proposal without needing to inject it into the ruleset (I believe Agencies with output can be used to do any kind of Agoran experiment, really. Stock up on them precedents!) On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > Interesting question. > > I'd say it does have the potential to break things, but that it's a known > feature. > > i.e. if we put something broken in a Rule via a proposal, then we'd have > to say "it's our fault, we shouldn't have voted for it." It's really the > same (only) protection against bad proposals. In other words, it doesn't > seem any more dangerous than rule changes of the same power? > > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On Sep 20, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > > > > > Without addressing the question of whether a proposal can have direct > effects on other proposals without enacting a rule change (a complicated > question under rule 2140), it seems clear that a proposal can have effects > beyond rule changes, and that those effects could include effects on the > proposal itself. > > > > I slept on this, and I’m concerned that this may have been a more > dangerous precedent than I originally considered. I’m going to let it stand > unless someone else feels I should reconsider, but it might be worth > contemplating what the effects of an adopted proposal similar to > > > > ----- > > The clauses of this proposal take effect simultaneously, in one > indivisible step. > > > > The following clause has no effect. > > > > The previous clause has no effect. > > ----- > > > > would be. > > > > -o > > > > >
