No, but I've never spotted any exploit before it actually happens and yet people still pull things off every so often. At the very least I would like some official confirmation that I'm just worrying about nothing.
-twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, July 5, 2019 6:31 PM, Aris Merchant <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't really see how that could be exploitable. Anyway, whenever a > rule says "If X occurs, Y occurs", that rule is pretty clearly the > agent for Y. > > -Aris > > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 8:22 AM Timon Walshe-Grey [email protected] wrote: > > > I didn't see that, but in any case I'm not 100% convinced by Aris' logic. > > Letting rule changes take effect without clearly specifying the instrument > > causing them just feels like the sort of thing which, if it worked, would > > have been used by ais523 for a scam at some point. > > -twg > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > On Friday, July 5, 2019 2:35 PM, Jason Cobb [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Gratuitous: > > > This was already brought up by omd 0, and Aris gave a response arguing > > > that it would work 1. > > > Jason Cobb > > > On 7/5/19 10:03 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > > CFJ: Rule 2598 has been repealed. > > > > Gratuitous argument for FALSE - R2598 says/said: > > > > > > > > 8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When > > > > this Rule is triggered, the following events happen in order: > > > > (a) the Politics Rules are automatically repealed in ascending > > > > numerical order (unless Politics has been Revived), (b) the > > > > Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in ascending > > > > numerical > > > > order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this Rule is > > > > automatically repealed. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not clear to me that those events can/could actually occur - the > > > > rule is/was just stating that they happen, rather than stating that it > > > > (or something else with Power >= 3.0) makes them happen. R105 is pretty > > > > unambiguous that rule changes can only be caused by instruments, which > > > > is why we have verbose things like this in R106: > > > > > > > > When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if > > > > the outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, > > > > and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power > > > > is > > > > set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it > > > > takes effect. Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal > > > > that > > > > takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the > > > > changes that it specifies.nother instrument > > > > > > > > > > > > -twg > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > > > On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 7:08 AM, Aris Merchant > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > > With Agoran Consent, I do so. > > > > > -Aris > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:22 PM Aris Merchant < > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Well, there's a simpler solution to that problem. It's not like > > > > > > we're > > > > > > really going to go back to our minigames anyway; that's not how the > > > > > > Agoran mind seems to work. If someone actually wants to revive a > > > > > > minigame, they can say so, and I'll probably support the intent. > > > > > > Otherwise... > > > > > > I intend with Agoran Consent to trigger Rule 2598, "Side-Game > > > > > > Suspension". > > > > > > For the public reference, the relevant provision of that rule is as > > > > > > follows: > > > > > > "Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When this > > > > > > Rule > > > > > > is triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics > > > > > > Rules are automatically repealed in ascending numerical order > > > > > > (unless > > > > > > Politics has been Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically > > > > > > repealed in ascending numerical order (unless Spaaace has been > > > > > > Revived), and (c) this Rule is automatically repealed." > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:16 PM Rebecca [email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hereby swear an Oath to vote AGAINST any proposal that adds > > > > > > > more text > > > > > > > than it deletes for at least the next 30 days. > > > > > > > From R. Lee
