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

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 p1596 modified r10, namely by making a rule that repealed it; but it 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 repealed."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 all nations were repealed.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