[This is only a draft.]
Sorry if this way too long (I could probably trim it down a bit if
necessary), but I did my best to cover all the ground that needs to be
covered.
Judgement in CFJ 3765:
I will begin by reading into the record this message from G. ([0]):
A little gratuitous for CFJ 3765-3766:
It's likely that an "arbitrary rule change" can be made by first
making other rule changes to remove any impediments, and then making the
arbitrary change. However, in judging whether some kind of change is
POSSIBLE, we judge based on the current ruleset - not the hypothetical
ruleset in which a few other changes have been made. This point (in what
the judgement covers) is worth addressing explicitly.
I agree that if a Rule 1698 were to specify that Agora is ossified if it
is IMPOSSIBLE "to cause arbitrary rule changes" (without specifying a
time period), then we might have an issue. However, R1698 does not say
such a thing, it instead reads:
Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes
to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a
four-week period.
I note that there is a slight grammatical ambiguity here: the above
quote could read as either "(to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made)
and/or (arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period)" or
"(to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals
to be adopted) within a four-week period". I believe the intent is the
latter reading, and I use the "common sense" test in Rule 217 to impose
this reading.
Given this reading, the action in question is not "cause arbitrary rule
changes", which would indeed be IMPOSSIBLE to perform under the current
ruleset, thanks in part to Rule 1698 itself. The action in question is
to "cause arbitrary rule changes _in a four-week period_". With the
current proposal process, it is indeed possible to cause any such rule
change in a four-week period:
Day 0: A proposal that repeals any protections is distributed
Day 0-7: Voting
Day 7: Resolution of decision to adopt proposal that repeals any
protections.
Day 7: A proposal that makes any arbitrary rule changes is distributed.
Day 7-14: Resolution of decision to adopt proposal that causes
arbitrary rule changes.
By this method, arbitrary rule-changes can be enacted. This also
certainly constitutes a "reasonable combination of actions by players",
and it would succeed even if a small number of days were to elapse
between the endings of voting periods and the resolutions of decisions.
For completeness, we consider each type of rule change outlined in Rule
105 and whether or not it is possible for the above process to cause
them (after repealing any blocking protections):
1. enact a rule: this is possible with a proposal of any power
2. repeal a rule: this is possible with a proposal of sufficiently high
power
3. reenact a rule: this is possible with a proposal of sufficiently
high power
4. amend a rule: this is possible with a proposal of sufficiently high
power
5. retitle a rule: this is possible with a proposal of sufficiently
high power
6. change the power of a rule: this is possible with a proposal of
sufficiently high power
Furthermore, Rule 1698 is protected against possible future changes in
the definition of "rule change", as we must interpret the Rules with the
definitions currently in effect, and Rule 105 very explicitly states
what a "rule change" is, so we must use this definition in our
interpretation of Rule 1698. We thus do not need to consider any
possible future changes to the definition of "rule change", even within
the four-week period.
To decide whether or not it is "IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes [...]
within a four-week period", I consult the definition of "IMPOSSIBLE" in
Rule 2152:
1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to perform the
described action are unsuccessful.
I have shown above how it is possible for an attempt to perform this
action (causing arbitrary rule changes within a four-week period) could
be successful. Thus, under Rule 1698, Agora is not ossified. FALSE.
The caller provides some possible "rule changes" that e believes are
IMPOSSIBLE to enact; for completeness, I will show that these are not in
fact counterexamples to my above claims:
One such example is:
"Enact a power 100 Rule that provides,
'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules, rules to the contrary
notwithstanding.' Leave the Ruleset otherwise unchanged."
Per the definition of "rule change" provided in Rule 105, this is not a
rule change, although it does contain a rule change:
Enact a power 100 Rule that provides,
'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules, rules to the contrary
notwithstanding.'
This is indeed possible to enact in a four week period, with the method
described above. Even the specification of "power 100" does not make
this IMPOSSIBLE to enact because Rule 105 provides that the power of the
enacted rule is "the minimum of the power specified by the enacting
instrument [...] and the maximum power permitted by other rules".
The caller also provides this as an example:
"Repeal Rule 1698 (Ossification).
Enact a power 100 rule that procides, 'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules,
rules to the contrary notwithstanding.'"
Again, this is not a rule change. This time it consists of two rule
changes, and it is possible to cause each one of them in a four week
period, as described above.
Evidence
========
[0]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-August/055219.html
Rule 1698/5 ("Agora Is A Nomic"):
Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes
to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a
four-week period.
If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause
Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist,
it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. If
any other single change or inseperable group of changes to the
gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause
Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules
to the contrary notwithstanding.
