Done right, it might remove net text. Things that are obvious and
known by all should not be codified; the record will show you that
this is no so such thing. Implicit doctrines create messes. They have
their place, but they should be codified and made binding law.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:45 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
