I’d propose a different theory. Mine is cleaner and simpler, but I’m not entirely sure which is actually better. Barring someone is a separate action from calling the CFJ; it just has to be done in the same message. By contrast, it’s a tad hard to argue that specifying the AI of a proposal is somehow separately from specifying the rest of its properties. So it makes logical sense that barring should be able to succeed or fail atomically, whereas specifying a proposal’s AI shouldn’t. G., any opinion on which of these explanations better fits with Agoran practice?
-Aris On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 11:44 AM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
