On 8/18/2022 7:33 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 07:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 8/18/2022 3:18 AM, Madrid via agora-business wrote: >>> I intend to ratify without objection the following: "Agora is not ossified." >> >> [snip] >> >> If such a statement is ratified when it *doesn't* match the conditions, >> ratifying the statement would lead to an inconsistency between the >> gamestate and the rules. > > I'm not convinced. Imagine a situation where making arbitrary rule > changes requires a process that takes between 28 and 32 days in length > (say we have to RWO a switch first, then go through two rounds of > proposals and those 27 days in total). If there's only one switch that > matters, I can imagine that ratifying the non-ossification of Agora > could flip that switch.
I'm not sure I see the example clearly here (and am fairly sure that an indirect effect like that wouldn't work unless it was explicitly described in the RWO attempt to the level tabled actions need - which would be a different beast?) > (Actually, this could lead to an interesting paradox – at the end of > the intent period for the RWO, we have a situation where a gamestate > change – possible to make in zero time, via resolving the intent – > could unossify Agora. This implies that Agora is not ossified. However, > if Agora is not ossified, ratifying the statement has no effect, > because you'd be ratifying a true statement; as such, in that > hypothetical Agora is actually ossified! Agora is thus ossified if and > only if it isn't.) >
