On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I disagree—just because a proposal provides the text of a document doesn’t
> mean that the document is part of the proposal and is evaluated when the
> proposal gains power.
R2350:A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and
other attributes.
The "body of text" is the proposal. The whole body of text. You can't
have something in there without it being part of the body of text, therefore
part of the proposal. I don't really know what it means for the whole body
of text to have one power, and a sub-portion to have a different power.
So R106 requires you to step through the full proposal at the power of
that proposal.
But really, the power's a red herring. Let's step through your loop.
For each of the micro-proposals below:
{
1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all
players.
2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal
power equal to its Adoption Index.
}
Ok, now your micro-proposals have power. But so what? They haven't
actually done anything because they don't actually take effect until
you get to them in sequence. Now we go on.
Micro-Proposal 1: Do X
Well, Rule 106 is still implementing the Proposal as a whole:
"a proposal that
takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the
changes that it specifies."
The phrase "do X" is implemented by the Proposal at the power of the
whole Proposal, whether or not it was FOR or AGAINST, and whether or not
the "micro proposal" has power, because the 'Do X' is an assertive part
of the main proposal and thus takes effect, regardless of its labeling.
In programming terms, if each micro-proposal is a Function, your loop
sets some properties of each function (power) but doesn't actually
call each function (doesn't say it takes effect). Then you pass
through and, missing a break statement, step through each function
and it takes effect, still at the power of the original proposal
(because R106 is driving the step-through until you reach the end
or explicitly terminate).
Here's a re-writing that fixes it, I think:
For each of the micro-proposals below:
{
1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all
players.
2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, its clauses take effect as if
they were taking effect at the power of the AI indicated for that
micro-proposal. Otherwise, its clauses do not take effect.
}
The clauses below this line have no further effect.
