[Bnomic-private] CFI -- Prop 958

[Glotmorf]

On 9/15/02 at 11:05 AM Wonko wrote:

>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.

If the proposal is required to obey the ruleset as a whole, then no=
 individual part of said ruleset can be taken out of context of the rest of=
 it.  Which means one can't just say that a proposal is automatically=
 implemented because r15 says it is.  Said proposal must be legitimate=
 according to the rest of the ruleset too, including that part that says=
 shillings can only be manipulated the way the rules say.

>>> 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".

And said request is decided on by the bulk of the playership.  With their=
 affirmative votes, the proposal becomes a set of changes to the game state=
 to be performed.  Somehow I suspect said changes would get performed=
 despite the absence of a specific sentence in Rule 15 saying they shall=
 be.

						Glotmorf