On 8/2/20 5:43 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
> 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".
That's fair, though I still think the language is similar enough to
function in the same way.
>
>> 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?
>
Yes, that's the one.
--
Jason Cobb
