Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Proposal: Maybe?

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 16 Mar 2017 18:26:25 UTC

Upon enacting this proposal do the following changes in order:
Change the definition of “May” under “Keywords” to “is allowed to”
Change the definition of “May not” under “Keywords” to “is not allowed to”
In the rules change every instance of “may not”, other than the definition of “may not” under Keywords, to “is not allowed to”
In the rules change every instance of “may”, other than the definition of “may” under Keywords or a section titled “The Maxim of Quantity” if it exists, to “is allowed to”
In any pending proposals, change every instance of “may not” to “is not allowed to”
In any pending proposals, change every instance of “may” to “is allowed to”

Proposals are part of the gamestate, right?

Comments

Cuddlebeam:

03-14-2017 21:55:10 UTC

If they aren’t, you can declare them as so and then make retroactive changes, all in this one proposal.

Oracular rufio:

03-14-2017 21:56:18 UTC

I don’t think this changes anything, beyond possibly making some things nonsensical, and I don’t think you can use a proposal to modify pendiing proposals.

card:

03-14-2017 22:31:30 UTC

[Oracular rufio] Well under Keywords the definition of Gamestate reads “Any information which the Ruleset regulates the alteration of.” And since the Ruleset regulates how proposals can be made, edited and enacted, I’m now certain proposals are part of the Gamestate. Since proposals can change the gamestate then a proposal is valid even if it changes other proposals.

Oracular rufio:

03-14-2017 22:39:11 UTC

There’s also rules about when proposals can be edited.  What happens to proposals that can’t be edited according to the ruleset?  Dynastic rules overrule core rules, but this isn’t a rule in the ruleset, it’s just some text in a proposal.

Cuddlebeam:

03-14-2017 22:44:34 UTC

I agree with Oracular with that it would make things a bit haphazard with the pending proposals and all, but you entirely legally can use a proposal to change literally anything, so I disagree with that you can’t use a proposal to change pending proposals.

Cuddlebeam:

03-14-2017 22:46:30 UTC

*Literally anything in the context of the nomic and stuff.

Also, even if there are rules about how proposals can be editted, you can just propose in the proposal to have a caveat, do the fixes, then remove the caveat. Rules that restrict things don’t matter at all.

Cuddlebeam:

03-14-2017 22:47:42 UTC

*Don’t matter at all in the context of what you can and can’t do with proposals

Dang I’m on a roll lol

Bucky:

03-14-2017 23:07:37 UTC

There is precedent for proposals amending pending proposals.  Proposals that amend enacted proposals are strongly discouraged because they have no significant effect.

Cuddlebeam:

03-14-2017 23:38:47 UTC

From a rhetoric point of view I shouldn’t be mentioning something that devalues something that defends my point but I’ll do it anyway because I care more about cool rule stuff.

Precedents don’t matter squat when it comes to sheer mechanical force because Nomic works upon the reality that our consensus creates, not real formal space.

So we can regard precedents freely or not. Still interesting to know about precedents though, because they influence people’s view of things because bandwagoning, plain laziness and trust are a thing, and people’s view of things affects the consensus reality.

Cuddlebeam:

03-14-2017 23:40:31 UTC

ty for bringing it up though Bucky, it’s cool to know.

card:

03-15-2017 01:51:45 UTC

[Oracular rufio] Oh yeah, if by nonsensical you meant that ‘is’ would be in the wrong tense at some points in the rules, that wouldn’t be a problem because anyone can fix typos like that.

Oracular rufio:

03-15-2017 02:20:47 UTC

I just think that search-replacing the ruleset is a bad idea.  Besides, as Kevan pointed out, there are some places where “may” doesn’t mean “is allowed to”, which will result in weirdness.

card:

03-15-2017 02:33:18 UTC

[Oracular rufio] Those instances should be changed, because right now “may” means “is permitted to,” which is the same as “is allowed to.” This proposal just tries to make it clearer in the rules by using terminology we can understand, as some people seem to have an aversion to the word may.

Kevan:

03-15-2017 11:31:16 UTC

against

Not seeing a useful distinction in changing “permitted” to “allowed”, and I don’t understand why you’re altering a keyword and then removing all instances of it from the ruleset.

Oracular rufio:

03-15-2017 20:15:39 UTC

against

pokes:

03-15-2017 22:26:46 UTC

against

card:

03-16-2017 17:09:10 UTC

against