Forest Sweeney via agora-business [2023-02-20 22:55]:
> I […] submit the following:
> {
> Title: Reenactment V2
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-Authors: G., Janet
>
> Enact a rule with power=1.0 and the text:
> {
> The rulekeepor CAN and MUST re-enact one of the following,
> in a timely manner by announcement, chosen randomly by em, at power=1.0:
> 1. Rule 2193/0
> 2. Rule 2615
> 3. Rule 2571
> 4. Rule 1993
> 5. Rule 2309
> 6. Rule 108
>
> Once e does so, repeal this rule.
> }
> }
I don't know if this kind of language works. “Repeal this rule” sounds
like a command, not a statement. Perhaps it would be better to state
“Once e does so, this rule is repealed.” Similarly, the “timely manner”
requirement doesn't seem to specify a starting time (e.g., “after such
and such event”). I'd advise you to include something to the effect of
“after the creation of this rule”.
> I also submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: Ongoing obligation
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Coauthor: Janet
>
> The player 4st MUST submit a copy of this proposal.
> }
> --
> 4st
I hope this doesn't work, or we'll have untrackable and ethereal
ontology-destabilizing floating obligations.
R106 states:
> proposal can neither delay nor extend its own effect
and
> a proposal's effect is instantaneous
This raised the question: is the effect of 4st's proposal indefinetly
extended? If so, does R106 preclude it from happening, or simply cuts it
short? Or even: its effect is instant; viz., the creation of the
obligation. I don't see anything in the rules to decide these two
dichotomies.
--
juan
