Instead of being one whole, a part of which we are severing, a proposal's usual form is implicitly making multiple speech acts like "I create a proposal with this text" "I choose to optionally specify this title" "I choose to optionally specify these co-authors" "I choose to optionally specify this AI" so it's simply not rewriting to invalidate the speech act which simply doesn't work. We do that sort of thing all the time.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:32 AM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well we're not rewriting the speech act. Textually, if you optionally > specify an AI, you have to specify a valid AI. If you don't do so, you have > failed to correctly optionally specify a valid AI, so that part fails. But > you haven't failed at the proposal itself and the other options, so they > succeed. It's the same with a bar, if you fail to present a valid option > for that optional requirement, it's just as if you didn't take that option > in the first place. > "To begin with, when someone submits a proposal, they’re performing the > action of creating an entity that has certain properties." > That's true but the mandatory one is just text, right? With the co-author > thing we are implicitly saying "I choose the option to use coauthors, which > are X and Y". And with AI we're saying "I choose the option to use an AI > which is X" . The rules allow us to optionally specify an AI, and obviously > an AI of 0.5 isn't one, so we're not rewriting the speech act, we're just > saying that the implicit "I choose the option to use an AI which is 0.5" is > invalid because the Rules provide no mechanism for taking that action. But > the rules do provide a mechanism for creating a proposal, for naming > authors etc, and none of that has to be rewritten. > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:24 AM Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It is possible that you’re correct. However, you have failed to counter my >> argument about the way speech acts work and the fact that we’re literally >> rewriting statements to make them work at that point. You’re saying that >> because something is invalid, it can be removed. Please explain why this >> does not involve rewriting a statement, or if it does, how that can be >> done >> in the context of Agoran speech acts. In other words, please either >> present >> a counter-argument or explain why your viewpoint is better. >> >> -Aris >> >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:18 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I think a proposal with an incorrect AI should be allowed to succeed >> > because an AI is optional. In my opinion only mandatory requirements >> should >> > be made to be met for something to succeed. >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM Aris Merchant < >> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > 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. >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > From R. Lee >> > >> > > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
