H. Arbitor: I’d just like to make sure this CFJ gets processed—I forgot to tag
the subject line, so it may have slipped through the cracks.
Gaelan
> On Jan 19, 2020, at 8:42 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>
> If there exists a rule 2604, then I perform the following actions: { [This
> conditional is a safeguard against That One Rule becoming defined before rule
> 2604 passes, in the event of some Assessorial mishap]
>
> I declare That One Rule to be rule 1030.
>
> I award myself the patent title of “The Powerless.”
>
> CFJ: Gaelan has the patent title “The Powerless.”
>
> }
>
> Arguments: {
> Here’s a summary of my view on the issue. This question has been debated at
> length in the thread from my original proposal, which the H. Judge may want
> to take a look at.
>
> The central issue here is described in a 1996 thesis by Andre, reproduced in
> full in Appendix A. The jist is this: Generally, precedence between Agoran
> rules is determined by Rule 1030, which sets out the power system we know and
> tolerate. In particular, it purports to makes any attempt by a lower-powered
> rule to claim precedence over a higher-powered rule INEFFECTIVE. However,
> what happens if a lower-powered rule claims precedence over rule 1030? Both
> rules claim precedence over the other, and there’s no inherent reason to
> prefer one, other than Rule 1030 itself.
>
> Andre proposed a solution to the issue, which remains, sans some changes in
> wording, as the last paragraph of rule 1030/13: {
> No change to the ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
> directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of determining
> precedence. This applies to changes by the enactment or amendment
> of a Rule, or of any other form. This Rule takes precedence over
> any Rule that would permit such a change to the ruleset.
> }
>
> I proposed what is now Rule 2604/0, which appears to circumvent that clause
> of rule 1030: {
> This rule takes precedence over That One Rule, provisions of That One
> Rule
> notwithstanding. That One Rule is defined as the rule that Gaelan has
> most
> recently declared, by announcement, to be That One Rule.
>
> Additionally, this rule takes precedence over all rules other than Rule
> 1030,
> provisions of That One Rule notwithstanding.
>
> Gaelan CAN, by announcement, award emself the patent title of “The
> Powerless”.
> }
>
> At the time of the rule’s passage, That One Rule was undefined, and therefore
> Rule 1030 would have no reason to prevent 2604’s passage. Soon afterward,
> however, came the big reveal: That One Rule is 1030! It’s been tricked! Now
> that rule 2604 is in the ruleset and claiming precedence over 1030, we’ve
> reached Andre’s paradox: two rules claim precedence over each other, and
> there’s no neutral third-party telling us which to prefer.
>
> It’s worth considering whether or not my declaration of That One Rule
> constitutes a “change to the ruleset… by the enactment or amendment of a
> Rule, or of any other form” (1030/13). I find this interpretation unlikely:
> Agora has plenty of examples of gamestate that effect the functioning of the
> rules, but aren’t part of the ruleset. For instance, nobody would argue that
> a person registering is a change to the ruleset, even though it grants the
> person new rights and obligations under the rules.
>
> So, do I have the patent title? Rule 1030 would claim that I don’t: Rule
> 649/41 claims that "Awarding or revoking a Patent Title is secured at power
> 1.” Of course, Rule 2604 claims otherwise. With no mechanism to decide
> between the two, I believe this is “logically undecidable as a result of a
> paradox or or other irresovable logical situation” (591/46), and therefore
> PARADOXICAL.
>
> It’s worth noting that in the latest edition of the Ruleset, the H.
> Rulekeepor has placed rule 2604 before rule 1030. One might argue that in a
> natural reading of the rules, an earlier rule would take precedence over a
> later one. This isn’t a particularly strong argument, because Agoran don’t
> typically view the ruleset as an ordered document, but this isn’t a typical
> sitauation.
> }
>
> APPENDIX A:
>> A case of problematic precedence
>>
>> In this thesis I will present a paradox in the precedence rules for a Nomic
>> game. One example of these is of course known to us all: Suppose the
>> following rules would exist:
>>
>> 4000 The Virus is green. This rule takes precedence over rule 4010.
>> 4010 The Virus is blue. This rule takes precedence over rule 4011.
>> 4011 The Virus is yellow. This rule takes precedence over rule 4000.
>> What colour would the Virus have? Rule 4000 takes precedence over 4010, 4010
>> over 4011 and 4011 over 4000. So all have another rule of higher precedence
>> conflicting with it. It's a problem that is known in real-life situations as
>> well: If three vehicles come to a crossing, situations can occur in which
>> each has to let one of the other two go first. This, however, is only an
>> omission in the precedence rules. It could even be argued that our Rule 1030
>> has already overcome it, although in my opinion it does not (although it
>> does alleviate some other precedence problems).
>>
>> This is not the point I want to discuss here. My example is in a way more
>> disturbing, because no change in the precedence rules will effectively
>> correct it.
>>
>> Suppose a rule would be enacted, with MI=1, and the following text:
>>
>> Rule 9999/0
>> Andre may not deregister.
>> Will it have effect? Of course not. It is in conflict with Rule 113, which
>> has higher precedence. New try:
>> Rule 9999/1
>> Andre may not deregister. This Rule takes precedence over Rule 113.
>> Again Rule 9999 and Rule 113 are in conflict. Let's look at the precedence
>> Rules. Rule 1482 says:
>> In a conflict between Rules with different Mutability Indices,
>> the Rule with the higher Mutability Index takes precedence over
>> the Rule with the lower Mutability Index. [1
>> <file:///Users/gaelan/Downloads/agora_vanyel1/theses/andre-an.html#ref1>]
>> So, at first sight this would be no problem: Rule 1482 specifies that Rule
>> 113 still takes precedence. There is more here than meets the eye, though.
>> Rule 9999 says it takes precedence over Rule 113. Rule 1482 says Rule 113
>> takes precedence over Rule 9999. So, in fact there is a conflict between
>> Rule 1482 and Rule 113. This Rule is of course solved by looking which of
>> the two Rules takes precedence. This is Rule 1482, so in fact Rule 113 takes
>> precedence over Rule 9999. However, this leads to the following, paradox
>> causing Rule:
>> Rule 9999/2
>> Andre may not deregister. This Rule takes precedence over Rule 113 and Rule
>> 1482.
>> Again Rule 9999 and Rule 113 are in conflict. Rule 9999 and 1482 are in
>> conflict, but this time - Who wins this conflict? Both claim to be the
>> winner, and who is to arbitrate? The Rules can't tell you.
>> As with so many paradoxes this paradox revolts around self-reference. In
>> Nomic we already have the Paradox of Self-amendment, which in fact kind of
>> started the whole game, which appears when the rule changing rules are
>> changed [2
>> <file:///Users/gaelan/Downloads/agora_vanyel1/theses/andre-an.html#ref2>],
>> and the pardoxes that occur when a CFJ has to regulate its own legality or
>> application. Here it is the precedence between precedence rules that causes
>> the problem.
>>
>> What can we do about this? As will be clear from the preceding discussion,
>> adding or changing precedence Rules will not solve the problem, and can even
>> deteriorate it. Two ways are still open:
>>
>> Add a meta-rule (does anyone have a quasi-official set of them?) to this
>> effect, for example: If two Rules regulating precedence conflict on the
>> subject which of them takes precedence, then the oldest one does.
>> Disallow the creation of this kind of disturbing Rules, for example by
>> adding a high-MI (3 seems most logical) Rule with a text like:
>> Any Rule Change which would cause a Rule with an MI lower than three that
>> claims precedence over Rule 1482 is not allowed to take place, any Rule
>> to the contrary notwithstanding.
>> References:
>> [1 <>] Agora ruleset.
>> [2 <>] Peter Suber, The Paradox of Self-Amendment: A Study of Logic, Law,
>> Omnipotence, and Change. Peter Lang Publishing, 1990.
>
>
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Jan 19, 2020, at 7:29 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official
>> <agora-offic...@agoranomic.org <mailto:agora-offic...@agoranomic.org>> wrote:
>>
>> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8280-8286
>> =================================
>>
>> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
>>
>> The quorum for all below decisions was 4.
>>
>> All players have voting strength 3.
>>
>>
>> PROPOSAL 8280 (Resolve the troubles v1.1)
>> FOR (0):
>> AGAINST (6): Alexis, Aris, Falsifian, G., Jason Cobb, Rance
>> PRESENT (2): Gaelan, twg
>> BALLOTS: 8
>> AI (F/A): 0/18 (AI=3.0)
>> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>>
>> PROPOSAL 8281 (Nothing to see here, Rule 1030 v2)
>> FOR (5): Aris, G., Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Rance
>> AGAINST (2): Alexis, twg
>> PRESENT (1): Falsifian
>> BALLOTS: 8
>> AI (F/A): 15/6 (AI=1.0)
>> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>>
>> PROPOSAL 8282 (Let's do this the hard way v1.1)
>> FOR (0):
>> AGAINST (5): Alexis, Falsifian, G., Jason Cobb, Rance
>> PRESENT (3): Aris, Gaelan, twg
>> BALLOTS: 8
>> AI (F/A): 0/15 (AI=1.0)
>> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>>
>> PROPOSAL 8283 (Ex Post Ribbon)
>> FOR (6): Alexis, Aris, Falsifian, G., Gaelan, twg
>> AGAINST (0):
>> PRESENT (2): Jason Cobb, Rance
>> BALLOTS: 8
>> AI (F/A): 18/0 (AI=3.0)
>> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>>
>> PROPOSAL 8284 (Line-Item Power)
>> FOR (1): Alexis
>> AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian, G., Jason Cobb, Rance, twg
>> PRESENT (1): Gaelan
>> BALLOTS: 8
>> AI (F/A): 3/18 (AI=3.0)
>> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>>
>> PROPOSAL 8285 (Line-Item Roulette)
>> FOR (1): Alexis
>> AGAINST (7): Aris, Falsifian, G., Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Rance, twg
>> PRESENT (0):
>> BALLOTS: 8
>> AI (F/A): 3/21 (AI=3.0)
>> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>>
>> PROPOSAL 8286 (I Forbid Vetos!)
>> FOR (3): Aris, Falsifian, twg
>> AGAINST (6): Alexis, G., Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Rance, o
>> PRESENT (0):
>> BALLOTS: 9
>> AI (F/A): 9/18 (AI=1.0)
>> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>>
>>
>> The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below:
>>
>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> ID: 8281
>> Title: Nothing to see here, Rule 1030 v2
>> Adoption index: 1.0
>> Author: Gaelan
>> Co-authors:
>>
>>
>> Create a power-0.1 rule titled "Nothing to see here, Rule 1030,” with the
>> following text: {
>> This rule takes precedence over That One Rule, provisions of That One Rule
>> notwithstanding. That One Rule is defined as the rule that Gaelan has most
>> recently declared, by announcement, to be That One Rule.
>>
>> Additionally, this rule takes precedence over all rules other than Rule
>> 1030,
>> provisions of That One Rule notwithstanding.
>>
>> Gaelan CAN, by announcement, award emself the patent title of “The
>> Powerless”.
>> }
>>
>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> ID: 8283
>> Title: Ex Post Ribbon
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Alexis
>> Co-authors:
>>
>>
>> Amend rule 2438 (Ribbons) by changing "When a proposal is adopted and
>> changes at least one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer earns a Red
>> Ribbon." to "When a proposal is adopted and changes at least one rule that,
>> immediately before or after the change, has Power >= 3, its proposer earns
>> a Red Ribbon."
>>
>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>
>
