On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Well, that's act-on-behalf or ratifying claims of identity out the
> window then (not that this is necessarily bad...).
The latter, anyway. Not sure about the former-- "who did X at time Y"
cannot refer to something after time Y except throug
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, comex wrote:
> It's possible, but IMO a variable should be considered independent
> only when necessary. In the case of adoption, it doesn't matter
> because nothing depends on whether historical proposals were adopted,
It matters when you ask what precisely is being ratifie
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I disagree. A dynamic system's state variables (versus rates/actions)
> are what you define them to be. For the above examples, rephrasing
> them as:
> "Proposal X's author is Y".
> or:
> "Proposal X is an adopted proposal".
>
> makes them
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, comex wrote:
> "Whether person X submitted a valid ballot on proposal Y" is not. It
> is a statement incorporating the gamestate-- specifically, what the
> Rules were at the time X attempted to submit the ballot-- but it is
> not stored in the gamestate, and ratification cann
On 01/14/2010 02:41 PM, comex wrote:
- the proposal was adopted, but did not take effect, Rule 106 notwithstanding
This requires _no_ changes to the gamestate, and I suppose the
ratification rule would choose that.
The fact that the proposal took effect is also self-ratifying.
-coppro
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> And it's not retroactive zeroing, it's just judging a week later whether
> the account was zero. The two questions "did the action take place" and
> "what were the resulting ergs" are just being answered late.
Ah, but according to your wordin
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:32 AM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
> I would think the Power Station Manager would be primarily responsible
> for tracking transactions and ensuring that no player exceed eir
> weekly allowance of ergs. If e's already doing that, it probably
> wouldn't be much more difficult to
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> An attempt to performed a fee-based action is also implicitly a
> claim to be in possession of sufficient ergs to perform the
> action, and such a claim is self-ratifying. If the claim is
> erroneous but self-ratifies, then
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, ais523 wrote:
>> Valid point, I'm pretty convinced that ratification is broken, now.
>> (Possibly by being too ambiguous to have an effect.) I still don't think
>> the general concept of ratification is too weak to provid
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> My interpretation is that ratification falls under the principle of most
> action; ratification will do as much as it can. In the case of an Agoran
> Decision, it would resolve the Decision with the wrong outcome, but
> everything else would be c
On 01/14/2010 11:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
So if I have 5 points, and my score is (accidentally) self-ratified
to be 10 points, we can say that "my score was changed from 5 to 10
at the instant the report was published" which we can't actually say
now. (This still leaves us open to occasional re
On 01/14/2010 10:49 AM, ais523 wrote:
Valid point, I'm pretty convinced that ratification is broken, now.
(Possibly by being too ambiguous to have an effect.) I still don't think
the general concept of ratification is too weak to provide a mechanism
around 1698; but the specific implementation we
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, ais523 wrote:
> Valid point, I'm pretty convinced that ratification is broken, now.
> (Possibly by being too ambiguous to have an effect.) I still don't think
> the general concept of ratification is too weak to provide a mechanism
> around 1698; but the specific implementatio
On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 09:24 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> In a greater sense, here's my conceptual problem with ratification.
> We've said (I think in a court case?) that if a ratification occurs on
> a report describes a state that is IMPOSSIBLE in a continuous sense
> (e.g. setting an asset to a n
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, ais523 wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 19:58 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So to answer the original question: A rule banning doing X does not ban
> other methods to achieve the same effect. However, nearly all security
> rules do explicitly ban other methods to achieve the same
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 19:58 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> But if this can be done over/outside precedence claims, wouldn't it mean that
> any (power-1) rule could do anything at all by saying "It doesn't actually
> do X, but causes the effects to to occur as if X happened."
In general, yes. That's
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 13:45 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If so, it means that self-ratification is simply an admission that,
> in spite of R1698, we are not in fact playing a nomic, but rather
> playing a system where we can arbitrarily make any change by
> unanimous consent (to ignore the f
17 matches
Mail list logo
