On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 07:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > 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?)
Just to clarify, I'm not sure I'm correct here, but: imagine a "proposals switch" which makes it possible to turn the proposals system on and off, with no specific rules-defined method of flipping it. Also imagine that the security system is changed so that proposals are the only way to amend rules. In this hypothetical, if the proposals switch gets turned off, then any attempt to get rule changes made necessarily has to start with turning it back on, so that'd be the first step in any attempt to make an arbitrary rules change, and that step could make a process that otherwise fits within the four-week limit take four days longer. A ratification of "Agora is not ossified" seems to me like, under rule 1551, it would flip the proposals switch – it's a gamestate change that minimally modifies the gamestate to deossify Agora, thus makes the statement as accurate as possible. (I also realised that there isn't a paradox here – the ratification of a true statement can cause a gamestate change as long as the statement was false at the time it was made. Say that when the proposals switch is off, that proposals can still be made but only on the first day of each month; then there are going to be occasional times which miss the four-week limit and thus temporarily ossify Agora. Those short lengths of ossification could be removed entirely by flipping the switch; so if you intend to RWO "Agora is not ossified" during one of those periods, but then resolve the intent when it's later in the month and Agora actual isn't ossified, it still flips the switch (it sets the gamestate to what it would be if the switch had been flipped at the time of the intent, and nothing has changed it since, so it's flipped in the present).) -- ais523
