There's a CFJ to the effect of "unless it's explicitly written in an Instrument of power, loops and paradoxes are just thrown out altogether as being ambiguous as per needing to specify actions clearly (R478). If there's an explicit rule/instrument that sets it up and takes precedence over other rules, it works." (I remember Murphy writing the judgement but as usual, can't remember any statement keywords). It only really gets tricky if it has Power and thus has rules-level effects.
(of course this would be an old judgement and probably would be revisited). On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > >
