On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 01:00, D Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > > Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment > > proposal? Or is that complicated to do? > > I think it would make the most sense to do it in one proposal if we could, > right?
I just thought it would be nice to keep the amendment proposal simple. But now that you mention it, if the retroactive part got delayed for some reason, it could be tricky to reason about the intervening time, which trumps my aesthetic concern. > I’m not sure what the right language would be. Maybe: “The gamestate is > changed as if the Rule amendments in this proposal had taken effect > immediately after the addition of the first paragraph in that Rule that has > the number 4, and as if no further changes had been made to that Rule since.” Thanks for drafting it. I have a few questions: I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule after that? If there were later changes, I think we have to be more careful. If we know the proposal, it would be good to name it specifically. (I'm not sure what the best way to research these is --- e.g. http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/rules_text.txt doesn't seem up to date.) Is there precedent for doing this? Is it clear what "gamestate" is? The Rules refer to some physical entities that a proposal can't control (persons (Rule 869), Fora (Rule 478)) so I worry there's potential for ambiguity about what got changed and what didn't by the proposal. Here's another possible approach. It assuages my own concerns about "gamestate" being vague, but "are considered to have been" might be worse... Any dependent actions that were attempted after Proposal P took effect and before now, and that would have been effective if the amendment in this proposal had been applied immediately after Proposal P, are considered to have been effective for the purposes of the game, to the extent possible: for example, the value of switches, the existence of patent titles, etc, are now what they would have been in the amendment had been applied immediately after Proposal P. > Could we add that to the fix proposal? Happy to add something like that, but would like your thoughts and/or feedback from others. > Not sure if that could break something else though...? Alternative (not serious) proto-proposal: Title: Saving the Game Enact a new power-3 rule with the text: Any player CAN Save a Game Backup by announcement, specifying a set of facts. Any player CAN Load a Game Backup without objection, uniquely specifying a previous backup. Upon doing so, all the facts specified with the backup become true, to the extent possible.
