[Bnomic-private] CFI -- Prop 958

[Wonko]

Quoth 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.

The proposal isn't required to obey each rule individually, it's required to
obey the Ruleset as a whole. Thus, it's not required to follow r897 if
another portion of the Rules says that it doesn't have to. In this case,
rule 15 is the rule which says that it MUST be implemented. As r15
supersedes r897, r15 is the one that the proposal is required to follow, and
r897 doesn't restrict it.

>> As for rule 636, the act of voting does not modify the shillings, it
>> modifies the player's vote (and 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.

Rule 15 is most definitely the object which causes a proposal to be
implemented. Without r15.H, proposals could be made, voted on, and deemed to
have passed/failed, but since nothing ever tries to implement them, they'd
never *do* anything. Your driver analogy breaks down because the driver can
drive without the road (though e may not enjoy it), whereas proposals cannot
be implemented without r15.H.
    A better analogy might be if a driver were driving by telling the road
what e wanted to do, and the road was moving em accordingly. The road is
then one actually responsible for doing the moving; the driver is just
requesting to be moved. A proposal is, after all, nothing more than "a
formal request for a set of Rule Changes or other changes to the game
state".

-- 
Wonko