On 8/3/19 10:39 AM, Nich Evans wrote:
On 8/3/19 10:12 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
On Aug 2, 2019, at 11:27 PM, Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
A couple responses to the proto judgement:
1. The Ossification rule says "arbitrary rule changes to be made
and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted"--that's plural
changeS/proposalS. Based on the text of the rule, Agora is Ossified
if there is a combination of rule changes and/or proposals that are
IMPOSSIBLE to adopt in a four week period. And I think it's
undisputed that there are combinations of rule changes that are
IMPOSSIBLE. For example, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to enact the
following pairs of "rule changes":
The rule says "changes", not "sequence of changes". Any number of
proposals could be inserted before or between your examples to make
them work; the rule does not check for specific sets.
Or to put it more prosaically, the rule is checking for changes as
endpoints. It doesn't care how you get to any given change, as long as a
possible route exists. When it says "changes" it's just talking about
multiple separate endpoints, not a route.
--
Nich Evans
