Re: [s-d] [s-b] Prop: Prohibit Time Travel Shenanigans

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rule 4-6 states that each proposal in numeric order becomes Passed, and in
1-11 that the actions contained within occur in order. However, there
exists no rule specifying how long it takes for the actions within a Motion
to take effect. We could measure by the length of time that it took the
Administrator to update the Game State, but if a Proposal were to change
the Administrator such a Proposal could never be executed. It seems more
reasonable to assume that an infinitesimal epsilon passes in which all
Proposals become Passed and their Actions Occur, and that Proposals are
platonically in the state they would be per the criteria set forth in Rule
4-6 when the Administrator (whomever e is) updates the State of the game.

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Peter Cooper Jr. <pete@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> On May 11, 2015, at 4:22 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The actions expressed in "It Could Work Anyway You Want" do not attempt
> to
> > make a retroactive change to the game. The proposal attempts to make
> > changes infinitesimally prior to the adoption of the other proposal.
> > Slightly parsimonious with the meaning of 'is', but how else will we know
> > how time works in 8e without experimenting?
>
> Here’s how resolution of proposals work, according to how I intended to
> set things up: (It’s entirely possible I set something up wrong, but here’s
> what I was going for.)
>
> At the end of nday 12, Rule 4-6 works on each Proposal in Proposal Number
> order. It counts the votes for that Proposal, and if appropriate the
> Proposal becomes Passed.
> A Proposal is a type of Motion (Rule 4-1).
> Rule 1-11 says that when a Motion becomes Passed, the actions listed
> within it occur in order.
>
> So if Prop 1-5 (“Let’s Keep Score”) and Prop 1-7 (“It Could Work Anyway
> You Want”) both pass, first the effects of Prop 1-5 happens (creating a
> section and rules), and then the effects of Prop 1-7. But, Prop 1-7 says
> ‘the contents of the proposal entitled "Let's Keep Score" is amended prior
> to that Proposal becoming Passed’, which is either not possible (akin to an
> instruction that says some kind of contradiction that is presumably not
> possible to resolve in any reasonable fashion, and a clearer interpretation
> under my proposed Temporal Prime Directive), or attempts to change the game
> before Prop 1-5 passes (whatever that may mean).
>
> Is the concern that “retroactive” is the wrong word here, and I’m looking
> for a different one that more clearly conveys “trying to do something in
> the past”?
>
> --
> Peter C.
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss