On Mon, 2022-04-11 at 19:29 -0300, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > That actually didn't seem like a good defense for me. The rule > explicitly states that commiting the crime is to perform an action that > “would” cause Agora to be Ossified. The only possible interpretation for > that tense is that it *won't* -- and the only possible reason for that, > at this level of generality, is R1698. > > So the definition of the crime arguably excludes that argument. It could > be read “An action is forbidden if it would, but for Rule 1698, upon its > successful occurence cause Agora to be ossified or to cease to exits.”
Rule 105 also causes most possible interpretations of an "ossify Agora" proposal to fail (because any rule change that ossified Agora would have to be specified explicitly in the proposal). Rule 101 prevents interpretations that would destroy or end Agora. It's possible that, in the absence of rule 1698, that such a proposal could still succeed via deregistering everyone, but I imagine it would be quite a stretch to try to determine that the proposal was using that specific method of ossificiation. (Additionally, in the absence of rule 1698, "ossified" wouldn't be defined, which may mean that the proposal had insufficient context to do anything.) -- ais523
