On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 7:32 AM juan via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > 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.Two separate things wrong with this proposal: - Punishment (blots) is only defined for people who violate "a rule". For example, we make Contract violations punishable by saying in R1742 "Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in accordance with that contract" so a violation of a contract is a violation of R1742. There's nothing to map "violation of proposals" to an actual punishment. So a CFJ might find "yes, 4st violated this proposal, but so what? there's no consequences and there's nothing in the rules that says proposals have to be obeyed." - Even if there was punishment for violating a proposal, this particular MUST has no time limit, and I think there are judgements that say a rules requirement that someone "SHALL do something" without a time limit can't be punished, because the person can always say they still have time to do it. -G.
