On 2020-08-02 19:56, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 8/2/20 12:34 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
Counter-proposal:
Title: Empty the escalator
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors: Jason, omd
{
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
begins "An indestructible asset".
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
begins "A fixed asset".
Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
}
I withdraw the above proposal and submit a proposal as follows. (I
removed "but have no direct effect" in two places since it seems vague
and unnecessary.)
Counter-proposal:
Title: Empty the escalator v1.1
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors: Jason, omd
{
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
are successful." before the sentence that begins "An indestructible asset".
Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
are successful." before the sentence that begins "A fixed asset".
Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
}
Counter-proposal counter-argument:
Rule 2162 uses similar phrasing for switch security:
A Rule that designates
a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
switch as secured (at that power level).
The intent of that phrasing was to only allow rules to secure switches
up to their own power level and avoid escalation to power 3 (the power
of R2162). If you're right, the above is also broken. I think it's clear
enough that both are meant to be instructions for interpretation.
The word "designates" seems more clearly to be about interpretation than
"enables".
This phrasing was written to circumvent the outcome of CFJ 3734, which
found that, at the time, destruction of indestructible assets was at
power 3, even if the rule designating the asset as indestructible was at
a lower power (this is now avoided because the backing document of the
entire ruleset can permit destructibility, which means normal precedence
applies).
CFJ 3734 was called and judged in June 2019, and I don't see any changes
to R2162 near that time. Are you thinking of Proposal 8187, which
amended R2577?
--
Falsifian
