On 6/26/23 12:35, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Rule
>>> UNDEFINED is inevitable and unstoppable despite any appearance or event
>>> that may indicate otherwise.
>>>
>>> Specifically, at this point in time, it is known that:
>>> - Rule UNDEFINED CANNOT amend itself, enact, re-enact, or repeal rules.
>>
>> Why not just "cause rule changes"?
>>
>> In any case, this prohibition is overridden by Rule 105.
>>
>>
> Oh thank goodness, so, do we need any additional action for containment?
>
> Also... in addition, "itself" should be "Rule UNDEFINED". Is the rule
> breaking itself??? We need to patch this before it's adopted!!!! AHHH!
I think you're misunderstanding. I don't think this prohibition (or,
potentially, any of the prohibitions) actually does anything stops
anything. I am not saying I think R105 prevents anything itself.
>>> - Rule UNDEFINED CAN join contracts.
>>
>> Rule 1742 explicitly restricts the parties of a contract to persons.
>>
>>
> Does this clause point out an issue with contracts? regardless, it's
> probably a good thing Rule UNDEFINED cannot join contracts.
No. It would be bad for a non-person to be able to be party to a contract.
> We can patch this too.
>
>> - Rule UNDEFINED CAN cause a player or players to win, despite it being
>>> ILLEGAL.
>> The Rule cannot be prosecuted for violating a Rule.
>
> I feel like we DO need a way to prosecute this rule... but for now, we can
> just repeal this sentence.
The absence of this clause doesn't prevent the rule from causing wins
(directly or indirectly).
>>> It is currently unknown why Rule UNDEFINED provides containment of Rule
>>> UNDEFINED. It is ENCOURAGED to update Rule UNDEFINED's description with
>> any
>>> and all available details of what exactly Rule UNDEFINED is.
>>>
>>> Addenda: Any and all addenda SHALL be found in the Agent's weekly report.
>>> }
>>
>> "addenda" to what?
>>
>>
> "Addenda" are any commentary, interactions, or other notes that are useful
> to the logging and archival of an anomalous entity, so we have good records
> of its effects, capabilities, anomalities, purpose, discovery, and creation.
Sure.
First, my point was it should say "addenda to this Rule" probably.
Second, what makes something count as an "addendum"? Can someone just
publish an "addendum" and thereby require the Agent to republish that in
perpetuity?
> Ok... so after reading your containment notes... Can we do anything about
> it now that it's currently contained in a proposal? I'm afraid it will
> escape if we withdraw the proposal and resubmit, so can we somehow...
> submit a new proposal to fix these issues before the Recordkeepor publishes
> eir report?
You have plenty of time to withdraw and resubmit. This wasn't
distributed in the most recent distribution.
> {Title: Additional Containment Procedure!!!
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-Author: Janet
>
> In this proposal, all instances of Rule UNDEFINED refer to Rule UNDEFINED
> enacted by the Proposal "Secure Contain Protect" submitted on 6/25/23
> 02:44, by 4st via agora-business.
>
> Amend Rule UNDEFINED by replacing "describe any interaction" with
> "interact".
I believe this still makes "interact" a new action with no effect.
> Amend Rule UNDEFINED by appending "Before the Rulekeepor publishes eir
> report, e CAN and SHALL modify this rule by replacing all instances of
> "UNDEFINED" with the rule's ID, and then removing this sentence. "
A person cannot directly effect a rule change.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
