Kerim Aydin via agora-business [2022-08-18 07:51]: > I submit the following Proposal: > Title: "Time B Safe" > AI: 4 > co-authors: Jason, Murphy. > --------------------------------- > > Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing: > adopted within a four-week period. > with: > adopted within a real-world (UTC) four-week period. > > [ > In discord, a Power-5 Rule was suggested: "Rules to the contrary > notwithstanding, this rule CANNOT be changed in January or February of > 2023". > > Up until the time a proposal to change this rule could take effect before > January 2023, Agora would not be ossified. But then you cross a time > boundary and Agora would become ossified. One *possible* interpretation of > > > If any other single change or inseparable group of changes to the > > gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause > > Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules > > to the contrary notwithstanding. > > is that the "cancelled change" would be time passing! With the conclusion > that time had (as a legal fiction) stopped, with no way of getting it > started again. So this proposal puts an extra protection on time by making > it clear that only "real world" time is relevant. The title a reference B > nomic, an established nomic some years back that was killed when they > accidentally stopped time or at least couldn't get it started again. > ]
I'm not sure this couldn't be circumvented. First of all, because the rules don't define the notion of time in any way. The only reasonable interpretation is that it refers to time-the-physical-concept, whatever that is. So several issues come about. * I can't think of something that could be reasonably called an *action* that causes the event of “being in january”. In any case, that transition only happens at a single point in time. * Time keeps ticking forward. When March would come, all would be resolved anyway. * Can one perform actions without time? We don't know, because the rules don't define it. So we should use our common-sense, which says that no, you can't. So *that* would ossify Agora and thus not be allowed. The minimal set of changes would have to be that the rule was never created in the first place. * It is in the best interest of the game to interpret all of this in a way that makes gameplay still possible. In the end, my particular arguments don't matter too much. I'm just saying I think there are enough of them for us to deal with such a rule. -- juan
