IANAAL (I am not an Agora lawyer).
I think that a key difference between those two scenarios is whether or
not the invalid action affects the gamestate. For instance, the AI of a
proposal is a key part of the proposal's identity, it will affect
whether or not it gets adopted, what it can do, etc. Changing the AI of
a proposal makes the consequences of the proposal vastly different, so
it makes sense not to do that implicitly. While for the CFJ scenario,
the difference between the barring succeeding and failing is nothing -
if the barring succeeded, then the non-person couldn't judge anyway, so
no difference to the gamestate than if it failed.
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 11:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/30/2019 11:32 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
If a player does all that and also specifies that AI=e, I don't see
why that makes the CAN clause fail.
It's impossible to create a Proposal with AI=0.5. If I say "I create the
following proposal with AI=0.5" it's equally reasonably to say "no you
didn't, that's IMPOSSIBLE to do and it fails" as it is to say "you got
that
half right - you made a proposal but it's a different (default) AI."
With those being equally reasonable in a vacuum (IMO), we've tended in
interpretation to err on the side of complete failure, for practical
reasons. It's so much easier to simply say "whoops, no action, try
again"
then to say "you did it half-right and now we have to clean up the
mess of
the half-correct proposal."
I'm not sure if there's a general principle here. For some things (like
paying fees) we really stick with complete failure - e.g. if you try
to pay
a fee and only have 1/2 the number of coins, we don't say "you paid
half and
then fail to perform the action" - there's an implicit "if this fee
can't be
paid in full, it fails".
On the other hand, let's say you call a CFJ and try to bar a
non-person from
judging for some silly reason. That "bar" fails, but I'm guessing
we'd just
let the CFJ go through - because the CFJ-calling and the barring are
somewhat weakly connected.
This is all to say - this seems like the sort of thing were some general
principles/tests along the continuum of success/failure are worth
figuring
out.
