[Bnomic-private] CFI -- Prop 958

[Glotmorf]

Does it strike you just how weird it is, the sides each of us are taking on=
 this?

On 9/14/02 at 10:36 PM Wonko wrote:

>[[I hate to do this, but hey, that's what the rules say. *sigh* There goes
>4.8 mill. :-( ]]
>
>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> I make the following CFI:
>> 
>> Statement:
>> 
>> Voting in favor of Proposal 958 is in violation of Rules 897 and 636;
>> therefore, affirmative votes for Proposal 958 cannot be counted.
>> 
>> Analysis:
>> 
>> Shillings are objects.  Wonko's shillings are in Wonko's possession. 
>Rule 897
>> says "B Nomic Shillings may only be manipulated as specified in the
>rules."
>> Rule 636 says "no player may modify the state of any object in
>possession of
>> another player, without the other player's explicit permission in a
>public
>> forum."  Wonko did not give permission in a public forum for eir
>shillings to
>> be modified.  Therefore, it is illegal for any player to vote in favor
>of a
>> proposal that modifies Wonko's shillings, e.g. by transferring them to
>the
>> Bank.
>
>Rule 15 states that "When a proposal passes, the following effects occur=
 in
>order:
>*<snip>
>* The effects specified in the proposal occur in the order listed in the
>proposal. "
>
>It supercedes rule 897, therefore proposing to manipulate shillings is
>legal.

Nice try, except for Rule 10: "All game entities and the Administrator must=
 abide by all the Rules in effect, in the form in which they are in effect.=
 No Proposal may attempt to temporarily circumvent the Rules. No Game=
 Action may circumvent or repress the Rules at any time. This Rule shall=
 always take precedence over all other Rules."

Therefore, the proposal can't circumvent r897, since it has to obey all the=
 rules.

>As for rule 636, the act of voting does not modify the shillings, it
>modifies the player's vote (andz possibly also the proposal - that's
>subject
>to interpretation). The actual modification of my shillings is performed=
 by
>rule 15 when it implements the proposal, and thus rule 636 doesn't get in
>the way.

To say that r15 is the acting agent for the actions in a proposal is like=
 saying a road is an acting agent for the actions of the driver of a car.=
  R15 doesn't cause proposals to be implemented; it only dictates when, if=
 at all, they should be implemented.  The administrator is not the acting=
 agent for the proposal's actions; he merely updates the semiphysical=
 manifestation of the game state to reflect them.  Even the proposing=
 player isn't the acting agent for the implementation, since all e does is=
 make an implementation using eir proposal possible.  The acting agent for=
 implementing a proposal is the body of players that vote in favor of it,=
 and who are thus responsible for it being implemented.

						Glotmorf