Index ← 2931 CFJ 2932 2933 → text
==============================  CFJ 2932  ==============================

    If Rule 2324 were amended as described in evidence, the adoption
    index of each existing Agoran decision with an adoption index would
    remain unchanged.


Caller:                                 Murphy
Barred:                                 omd

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Murphy:                       17 Dec 2010 02:44:55 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         20 Dec 2010 07:08:58 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      20 Dec 2010 18:32:04 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Rule 2162 (Switches) does not explicitly state that defining a switch
causes all instances to be have its default value; most cases rely on
the "would otherwise fail to have a possible value" clause.

(Rule 106 also secures changing a decision's adoption index, but with
a power threshold of only 2; Rule 2162 has Power 2, so would not be
blocked solely for that reason.)


Caller's Evidence:

omd wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Ed Murphy  wrote:
>> How does explicitly ruling out a fairly common value not count
>> as "differing greatly"?
> As a property, it applies to the expected kinds of entities; it has
> the same range of values that you'd assume (the rules only ever set AI
> to a multiple of 0.1, but the name strongly implies that the range is
> indices), except for that one value.  It's very different from, say,
> defining "object" as "support" or any of the other ridiculous
> definitions you could come up with.
> But, if you insist...
> I intend, With Notice, to cause Rule 2324 to amend itself by adding
> the following paragraph:
>       Decision adoption index (referred to as "adoption index" in the
>       context of Agoran decisions; not to be confused with the
>       adoption index of a proposal) is a switch possessed by Agoran
>       decisions, tracked by omd; the possible values for instances of
>       the switch are the indices, plus the default value "none".

Relevant rule excerpts:

Rule 1586/7 (Power=2)
Definition and Continuity of Entities

      If multiple rules (hereafter documents) attempt to define an
      entity with the same name, then they refer to the same entity.

      If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they
      still define that entity but with different properties, then
      that entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever
      extent is possible under the new definitions.

Rule 106/29 (Power=3)
Adopting Proposals

      Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.
      The adoption index of this decision is set to the adoption index
      of the proposal at the initiation of the decision.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

When we implemented switches the second time (Proposal 5111), several
properties - Activity, Publicity, Posture, Citizenship - were assumed,
as far as I can recall without argument, keep their prior (non-default
non-switch) values without explicit boot-up text.  If all those had been
taken to be reset we would be playing a game with neither public fora
nor Players.  TRUE.