Subject: acka Digest V1 #78
From: [email-masked]
To: acka digest users <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:00:03 -0500 (EST)

acka Digest	Tuesday, December 14 1999	Volume: 01  Issue: 078

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Re: Proposal 104 rejected
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:37:42 -0500 (EST)

>>from Rule S10:
>>specified for those spheres in order to make changes to them; if it
>>fails the conditions of any sphere it attempts to change then it is
>>null and has no effect.
>
>	By my reading, this causes all of the changes in 104 to fail, since
>it failed the condition to modify the Kernel sphere.  Just to make more
>chaos, I claim that 105 obviously intended to conflict with 104, and hence
>ask Malenkai to rule on whether or not it took effect.  In my rush to fix
>the bug, I submitted a fix before reading prop 108.  Kindly vote for 108
>and vote against my later prop (as will I).

Yes, I realized that all of 104 was null, and mentioned that difference
from my earlier position in my detailed analysis of the situation.  I
think we are all in agreement about that.

Now, as for the conflict business:
(1) Nitpicky, I know, but prop 105 is inanimate and has no intentions
    whatsoever.
(2) I agree that it is very likely that JT intended prop 105 to conflict
    with prop 104 rather than prop 103.
(3) Nevertheless, I don't think it very reasonable to claim that prop
    105 conflicts with a different prop than it said it conflicted with.
(4) The whole argument is moot anyway, as props 103 and 104 both passed.
    Prop 105 failed automatically either way.

ThinMan

------------------------------

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Re: Proposal 104 rejected
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:24:13 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, John Bollinger wrote:
> Now, as for the conflict business:
> (1) Nitpicky, I know, but prop 105 is inanimate and has no intentions
>     whatsoever.
> (2) I agree that it is very likely that JT intended prop 105 to conflict
>     with prop 104 rather than prop 103.

I was not the author of P105 :)

> (3) Nevertheless, I don't think it very reasonable to claim that prop
>     105 conflicts with a different prop than it said it conflicted with.
> (4) The whole argument is moot anyway, as props 103 and 104 both passed.
>     Prop 105 failed automatically either way.

True.

--JT

-- 
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Re: Proposal 107
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:36:17 -0500 (EST)

I'm curious.  Exactly which rule is numbered ??? ?  And which ???? ?  Are
these on the Questionable Sphere?

ThinMan?

------------------------------

From: Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Re: Proposal 104 rejected
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:25:26 -0500 (EST)

>(4) The whole argument is moot anyway, as props 103 and 104 both passed.
>    Prop 105 failed automatically either way.

	I agree with your other points, but I'd like to see a precedent
established on this now, when nothing big is at stake so we'll have it
solved when it is a big deal.

--
Heedless of grammar, they all cried, "That's him!"
				--Thomas Ingoldsby

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Re: Proposal 104 rejected
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:52:52 -0500 (EST)

else..if wrote:

>>(4) The whole argument is moot anyway, as props 103 and 104 both passed.
>>    Prop 105 failed automatically either way.
>
>	I agree with your other points, but I'd like to see a precedent
>established on this now, when nothing big is at stake so we'll have it
>solved when it is a big deal.

Precedent on what?  Are you suggesting that prop 104 didn't actually pass?
Okay, wait, perhaps you are noting the "null and has no effect" of Rule
S10?  I see how that could be confusing with respect to how conflicting
and dependant proposals were grafted onto the rules, but I don't think
that a careful reading of the rules supports prop 105 having passed as the
best interpretation.

Consideration 1:
Rule S10 talks uses accepted/rejected terminology whereas rule S51 uses
pass/fail terminology.  Although the difference is unfortunate, I don't
think it causes any real problems.  That is, I think it most reasonable
to interpret "passes" as equivalent to "is accepted" and "fails" as
equivalent to "is rejected."  It is conceivable that "passes" could be
interpreted as equivalent to "is activated," but then it is no longer
parallel to "fails," there are complicated timing issues introduced,
and it in general doesn't make as much sense.

Consideration 2:
Timing is the key to this problem.  Timing and Rule S10.  Timing, Rule S10,
and Rule S51 are the keys to this problem.  Timing, Rule -- err, anyway,
let's look at the timing.  The critical part is in section III of rule S10:

	Upon a Proposal having been in the Queue for exactly 7 days, it is 
	either Accepted or Rejected and it is removed from the Queue.  At 
	that time, the Proposal is Accepted if and only if a majority of the 
	votes cast on it were Yes, and the Player who authored it did not 
	vote No.  The Speaker (or eir bot) shall report in a Public Message 
	the status of any Accepted Proposal within 3 days of it becoming 
	Accepted; at that time the Proposal is moved onto the Structural 
	Sphere and activated.

Thus the acceptance (or rejection) occurs at a fixed point in time,
exactly 7 days after the proposal entering the queue.  Activation
of the accepted proposal will occur later.  In the meantime, rule S51
kicks in:

	Before any changes to the rules, a proposal may specify that it
	Conflicts with or Depends on a proposal already in the Queue, called
	the connected proposal.  If the connected one passes and the proposal
	Conflicted with it, the Conflicting proposal fails immediately and
	is removed from the queue. If the connected one fails and the
	proposal Depended on it, the Dependant proposal fails immediately
	and is removed from the queue.

The intial "before" should be interpreted as refering to relative position
in the proposal text, not relative position in time.  The alternative does
not make much sense in the context of a document.  With that out of the way,
I observe that rule S51 in this case calls for prop 105 to fail
_immediately_ when the connected one (be it 103 or 104) passes.  As it takes
some finite amount of time even for the 'bot to report a proposal passage,
the failure of prop 105 stipulated by rule S51 occurs _before_ the connected
proposal is activated.

Now back to rule S10.  I have previously quoted all of section IV in this
forum, so I now note only the first few words: "When a Proposal is
activated [...]."  It is in this context that rule S10 called for proposal
104 to "have no effect."  Well, now, if you consider the failure of prop
105 to be an effect of prop 104, then we have a conundrum.  Prop 104 has
_already_ had an effect, and -- in this way of thinking -- to reverse that
must constitute another.  A simple resolution would be to interpret S10's
"no effect" as "no further effect."  That is a bit unsatisfying to me,
however.  I prefer to contest the concept that the failure of prop 104 is
an "effect" of proposal 104 in the first place.  Instead, a close reading
of rule S51 has the failure of prop 105 being a result (an effect, if
you will) of the _passage_ of prop 104, rather than an effect of the
proposal itself.  The one event, not any element associated with it,
caused the other event.

To choose a broader reading of rule S51 invites the question of why we
should choose any particular element associated with the situation to
designate as the cause.  Shouldn't we, indeed, stipulate that prop 105
failed as an effect of rule S51?  How about we blame prop 105 for its
own demise?  Or couldn't we blame the vote that put prop 104 over the
threshold?  Why don't we attribute the blame to the Devil?  [Surely he
deserves lots of blame. :)]  Or, heck, else..if is credited with rules
S10 and S51; let's blame him!  If we wanted to choose some game state
element as the cause of prop 105's failure then either rule S51 or prop
105 itself is a better choice than prop 104.

ThinMan

------------------------------

From: "Thomas Hirsch" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Re: Proposal 107
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:26:41 -0500 (EST)

> I'm curious.  Exactly which rule is numbered ??? ?  And which ???? ?  Are
> these on the Questionable Sphere?

Indeed a questionable question. Besides, I'm wondering what happens to non-english 
sentences and words 'interpreted in accordance with customary English Language 
usage and semantics'. I'm not that accustomed to it that I'd dare to decide whether 
they are ignored, interpreted using fuzzy logic, or are just causing a major headache 
to the interpreter.

--
> Thomas Hirsch <
[email-masked]
--
Could anybody turn up the A/C here ?

------------------------------

From: Henry Towsner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Re: Proposal 104 rejected
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:29:04 -0500 (EST)

>Precedent on what?  Are you suggesting that prop 104 didn't actually pass?
>Okay, wait, perhaps you are noting the "null and has no effect" of Rule
>S10?  I see how that could be confusing with respect to how conflicting
>and dependant proposals were grafted onto the rules, but I don't think
>that a careful reading of the rules supports prop 105 having passed as the
>best interpretation.

	I realize that 105 unquestionably failed, and I'm not questioning
whether 104's failure to activate caused problems.  My concern is that it
said that it conflicted, I believe, with 103, and I want to know whether or
not it can be treated as having conflicted with 104.  I'd like to find out
whether or not the conflicting clause took effect, since that would say
something about how strictly we're going to interpret such things.

--
Heedless of grammar, they all cried, "That's him!"
				--Thomas Ingoldsby

------------------------------

Subject: Acka: Proposal 110
From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:56:58 -0500 (EST)

Proposal 110
The Squeaky Wheel...
[anonymous]
Due: Tue Dec 21 16:56:56 1999

Create a new rule on the Structural Sphere, numbered S2000, and titled
"Edit Buffer," with the following text: "No provision of this rule is
binding or has any effect, except this provision."

Amend rule S2000 in the following ways:

1. Append to it the full text of rule S10.

2. Replace the first sentence of section I with "A Proposal is a list
   of proposed changes to the Game State, together with all associated
   implicit and explicit attributes.  Attributes include, but are not
   necessarilly limited to, title, name of submitter, dependencies,
   and conflicts."

[The attributes bit makes attributes formally part of the proposal,
which does some nice things including accounting for furniture as
explicit attributes.]

3. Append the following sentence to the body of section II: "Voting on a
   proposal constitutes a manipulation of that proposal."  [This
   prevents game state elements outside the Living Sphere from voting
   on Proposals.]

4. Insert the following sentence into the body of section III,
   immediately prior to the sentence beginning with "The Speaker":
   "Rejected proposals self-destruct five seconds after leaving
   the queue."

5. Replace the word "authored" with the word "submitted" in section III.

[Submitter is verifiable; author is not.  For that matter, the author
may not be just one person.]

6. Replace section IV with the following GETS_THE_GREASE-delimited
   text:

GETS_THE_GREASE
As soon as a Proposal is activated, it is evaluated with respect to each
Sphere to which its list specifies one or more changes.  The Proposal
immediately ceases to exist if it does not satisfy the conditions for
modification by proposal of any of those Spheres.  If no conditions are
specified for a Sphere then the conditions for the Sphere immediately
inside it apply.  Then, if the proposal still exists it is transferred
to the innermost Sphere to which it lists a change, and it attempts to
perform each change on its list, in order, one at a time.  If a Proposal
lists a rule creation without specifying the location then it is treated
as if it specified the Structural Sphere for that rule.  If a proposal
lists the creation of a non-rule game state element without specifying
the location then it is treated as if it specified the Living Sphere for
that element.  After a Proposal has attempted to make all of the changes
on its list, that Proposal ceases to exist.

Players are strongly encouraged to place all changes to a single 
Sphere together in eir proposals and to clearly mark them.
GETS_THE_GREASE

[The biggest change here is a paradigm shift -- or perhaps just a
paradigm clarification -- which now has the Proposal attempting to
perform the changes it specifies.  Previously they just happened
automagically.  This also gets around the null and without effect
bit that caused so much confusion by simply destroying the proposal
before it does anything if it's not supposed to do anything.]

7. Append the following text to the end of the rule: "All existing
proposals which have been removed from the queue are destroyed.  Rule
S2000 is repealed.  After the previous two sentences take effect,
they are deleted from this rule along with this sentence." 
[Clean up all that clutter!]

Amend Rule S12 by replacing the text of section VII with: "Proposals
are ownable thingies, initially owned by their submitter."

Amend rule S10 by replacing its full text with the full text, except the
first sentence, of rule S2000.

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (John Bollinger)
Subject: Acka: Re: Proposal 104 rejected
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:00:15 -0500 (EST)

else..if wrote:
>                                                    My concern is that it
>said that it conflicted, I believe, with 103, and I want to know whether or
>not it can be treated as having conflicted with 104.  I'd like to find out
>whether or not the conflicting clause took effect, since that would say
>something about how strictly we're going to interpret such things.

Ah.  Very well, then.

ThinMan

------------------------------

From: Randy Hall <[email-masked]>
Subject: Acka: Re: Proposal 104 rejected
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:35:53 -0500 (EST)

> >(4) The whole argument is moot anyway, as props 103 and 104 both passed.
> >    Prop 105 failed automatically either way.
> 
>         I agree with your other points, but I'd like to see a precedent
> established on this now, when nothing big is at stake so we'll have it
> solved when it is a big deal.

I note that in our justice system, precedent has no bearing on interpreting
the rules.  In theory, of course, if the rules are interpreted as described
in the rules each time a question is asked, precedent is not necessary ;-)

I also note that the only class of question that may be asked (to phrase
generally), is of the form "is condition(s) X true of the game state".
I don't believe you can ask "How do we interpret rule Y" unless some
artifact (X) of the game state can be queried as in the first form to 
infer that interpretation Z of rule Y created X (you get the idea :-)).
(At least this is how I intended to write the original kernel, and I 
don't recall seeing any changes to this stuff go by).

> Just to make more
> chaos, I claim that 105 obviously intended to conflict with 104, and hence
> ask Malenkai to rule on whether or not it took effect.

I guess I'd say proposal 105 did not take effect, in accord with the consensus
that seems to exist.

To answer the question of interpretation anyway, I would say the proposal 
would be taken at face value in this case (referring to P103).  That is not 
to say that I'd feel that way all the time; if there is an (in my judgement)
clearly unambiguous typo in a number, then the typo would be correctable.
The S66, S666 example comes to mind as a possible example (although I don't
remember the specifics).  Each one of these has to be handled on
a case by case basis, for customary English usage allows the reader to
make error corrections in what is being read if said error is unambiguous
beyond a reasonable doubt.  The "error" here is clearly ambiguous (:-)), 
because (for example) reasonable arguments for "103" and "104" exist.

Malenkai

------------------------------

End of acka Digest V1 #78
*************************