I would oppose this because of my usual opposition to rules that state
things that are obvious and known by all, the fact that I am Oath-bound to
vote AGAINST proposals that add net text, and the fact that rules are not
fun and implied doctrines are very fun.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:33 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, after hearing your logic, I think agree with your general ideas
> here, but I'd really like #1 and #2 to be explicitly specified
> somewhere. It would give us something to direct new players to, and
> something to cite in CFJs when the principle comes up. Would you be
> opposed to such an explicit provision?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:20 PM omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3)
> >
> > Repeal Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions").
> >
> > Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
> >
> > 5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
> >
> > the following:
> >
> > For game-defined actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends
> > on the mechanism the rules define for performing the action.
> > If no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
> > perform the action.
> >
> > [[[
> > Rule 2125 is in an uncomfortable middle ground where it's too
> > simplistic to achieve what it wants to achieve, yet explicit enough to
> > break things. Potentially lots of things.
> >
> > Jason Cobb has a proto that tries to make it more explicit, but I
> > don't think it does enough to address the deficiencies of the rule –
> > such as ambiguity about what it means to "limit", as well as (as far
> > as I can tell) the question e emself just raised in a different
> > thread, about whether the definition of an "action" includes who is
> > performing it or its parameters. (I think it does not, but if we're
> > going to flesh out the language, that's the kind of thing that should
> > be made explicit.)
> >
> > I don't want to stomp on eir parade, but personally I'd rather take a
> > much different approach. I think we could avoid the difficulty of
> > defining a regulated action by splitting the "CAN only be performed"
> > clause into two simpler precepts:
> >
> > 1. The gamestate can only be changed as explicitly specified.
> >
> > 2. A game-defined action can only be performed as explicitly specified.
> >
> > #1 implies that any action which inherently involves changing the
> > gamestate as part of its definition – like, "the action of making omd
> > a player" – can only be performed as specified.
> >
> > #2 deals with actions like "distributing a proposal" where gamestate
> > changes are only a *result* of performing the action. IMO, what most
> > distinguishes these actions is not the fact that the Rules allow or
> > disallow them, per se, but the fact that they have no inherent
> > definition: that they're just Rules-defined platonic "thingies". To
> > make this clause fully explicit, it could be expanded in two ways: it
> > could use a more expansive definition of "game-defined action", along
> > the lines of what I just wrote, and it could clarify that there's a
> > presumption in favor of interpreting the rules as defining new actions
> > rather than referring to existing ones, even when they use
> > ordinary-language terminology ("distribute").
> >
> > On the other hand, the presumption in favor of 'Rules-defined platonic
> > thingy' doesn't just apply to actions but also to things, like coins
> > or proposals. We don't have any rule making it explicit in the latter
> > case, which suggests that we don't need one for the former either.
> >
> > In fact, I think #1 and #2 can both be left entirely implicit... which
> > is why this proposal doesn't introduce any language to replace the
> > "CAN only be performed" clause but just repeals it. :)
> >
> > The "methods explicitly specified" clause is different. It can't be
> > left implicit – it's contrary to precedent established before the
> > clause was enacted. And that precedent makes sense: if a rule
> > explicitly says that something CAN be done (but doesn't say how), who
> > are we to decide, without any rule to the contrary, that it CANNOT?
> >
> > Hence the new language added to "Mother, May I?". The idea is that by
> > saying "it is not possible to attempt to perform the action", it can
> > still be (vacuously) true that all attempts succeed. That way there's
> > no need to override the rule that says the action CAN be performed.
> > ]]]
>
--
>From R. Lee
