root wrote:
On Dec 5, 2007 11:05 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, the guardian rules would block their own repeal.
Only if the proposal repealing them violates their conditions.
You could repeal the guardian rules in one proposal, then break
the nomic in a second proposal; that'
On 12/5/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2007 11:05 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, the guardian rules would block their own repeal.
If a guardian rule would block its own repeal, then it violates itself ;)
On Dec 5, 2007 11:05 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, the guardian rules would block their own repeal.
Only if the proposal repealing them violates their conditions.
-root
On Dec 5, 2007 11:14 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R106 and R1698 don't prevent this. R2125(d) does.
Actually, now that I think about it, R1698 as it stands is pretty much
impotent given the final paragraph of R106.
-root
On Dec 5, 2007 10:59 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/5/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Create a rule with Power 3.1 and this text:
> Devil's advocate: If you achieve AI=3 you could just repeal the guardian
> rules.
That assumes you need AI-3 to achieve this sort of thing
comex wrote:
On 12/5/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Create a rule with Power 3.1 and this text:
Devil's advocate: If you achieve AI=3 you could just repeal the guardian rules.
No, the guardian rules would block their own repeal.
On Dec 5, 2007 10:39 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proto: Make modifying information with a recordkeepor the only grounds
> for regulation; keep R1698.
I like this, but R1698 should be simultaneously strengthened by
merging in the "arbitrary modifications" aspect of R2125(d).
-root
On Dec 5, 2007 10:09 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This revised version also would not make an action that is always
> impossible regulated, so this stupid rule:
> "No player CAN by announcement win the game"
> would by R101 (ii) make any player able to win the game by
> announcement. Dep
On 12/5/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Create a rule with Power 3.1 and this text:
Devil's advocate: If you achieve AI=3 you could just repeal the guardian rules.
comex wrote:
Proto: Make modifying information with a recordkeepor the only grounds
for regulation; keep R1698.
These two things by themselves are not enough. Imagine the following
Terrible Proposal:
Create a rule with Power 3.1 and this text:
Rules CAN be changed by announcement, but
comex wrote:
On 12/5/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Regulated actions external to the rules (e.g. sending messages)
are ILLEGAL by default. Regulated actions defined by the rules
(e.g. casting votes) are IMPOSSIBLE by default.
This could make a bug in the rules mu
On 12/5/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "No player CAN by announcement win the game"
By the way, this is a wrong example, since winning the game modifies
the Herald's report.
Proto: Make modifying information with a recordkeepor the only grounds
for regulation; keep R1698.
On Dec 5, 2007 10:02 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really. This would only give judges the power to declare
> something regulated, which doesn't have much effect. On the other
> hand, the version that I intended to scam enforced a judicial finding
> that a regulated action (such as v
On 12/5/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regulated actions external to the rules (e.g. sending messages)
> are ILLEGAL by default. Regulated actions defined by the rules
> (e.g. casting votes) are IMPOSSIBLE by default.
This could make a bug in the rules much more like
On 12/5/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paragraph (e) of the proposed refactor still permits this sort of
> scam. If something like "Formalize Judicial Findings" passes, that
> would take care of it, but for regulation to rely on it, it should be
> at power 3, not 1.7.
Not really. This
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Proto-revision:
>
> An action is regulated if and only if one or more of the
> following are true:
...
> Regulated actions external to the rules (e.g. sending messages)
> are ILLEGAL by default. Regulated actions defined by the rules
> (e.g. casting votes
root wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007 10:23 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What reasons are those, again? It's been long enough and busy enough
that I've forgotten.
Regarding the first version, I said:
Primarily because I don't think that impossible actions should
necessarily be considered
On Dec 4, 2007 10:23 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What reasons are those, again? It's been long enough and busy enough
> that I've forgotten.
Regarding the first version, I said:
> Primarily because I don't think that impossible actions should
> necessarily be considered regulated.
root wrote:
5348 D1 3Murphy Refactor regulation
AGAINST. Same reasons I voted against all the other versions of this.
What reasons are those, again? It's been long enough and busy enough
that I've forgotten.
19 matches
Mail list logo
