Daniel Lepage on 7 Aug 2003 00:28:51 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] r10



On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 07:50  PM, Mark Karasek wrote:

On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 19:18:23 -0400, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

By r10:
No Proposal may modify this Rule unless said Proposal receives a 2/3 or greater plurality of affirmative votes.

p1596 modified r10, namely by making a rule that repealed it; but it didn't receive 2/3 of the votes, so r10 blocked it.

So now we have Rules 0-6 and Rule 10.

No, so the implementation of p1596 was illegal; r15 deferred to r10 and didn't implement that change to the gamestate.

I also claim that the wording of the sovereignty rule is bad - "The laws of each nation, part of a nation, or international body, as well as all international treaties and all government regulations, are repealed." is an action, not a rule condition; as such, I would interpret that it happens upon the rule's creation; the rule was created *before* B Nomic was a 'nation'; thus the repeal didn't affect our ruleset, because we weren't a nation.

From the former Rule 15:
"Proposals are processed in increasing integral order of serial number with respect to each other, but are otherwise considered to occur simultaneously, in the "instant" between the end of one nweek and the beginning of the next nweek."

Therefore, B Nomic became a nation at the same moment that the laws of all nations were repealed. Even if this hadn't been true, since p1596 created a rule rather than performing an action, I took this to mean that it was a *continuous* action; otherwise, why bother making it a rule?

This has, I believe, been discussed before; the conclusion reached was that the effects of the proposals happen 'simultaneously in order' - i.e., the gamestate changes to what it would be if they were implemented in order (that's the "processed in increasing order" bit); but the change itself is a single change that happens all at once.

Note that the rule says that they actually *are* processed in order, while they're just *considered* to have happened simultaneously. This was put in, I believe, to prevent things like Automation scripts from stepping in between proposals ("as soon as pX passes and defines something with a hole, but before pX+1 closes the hole, I do the following:").

--
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss