Index ← 2980 CFJ 2981 2982a → text
==============================  CFJ 2981  ==============================

    It is generally possible for the Rulekeepor to assign rule ID


Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by omd:                          21 Mar 2011 01:36:29 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     21 Mar 2011 02:00:09 GMT
Judged TRUE by Murphy:                  21 Mar 2011 02:21:04 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Does anyone have an argument for why this isn't broken?

[CotC: the following is from the message archived at the above URL]

DIS: power controls mutability
Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:03:05 -0800

Summary of a discussion on ##nomic:

Rule 2141's authorization of the Rulekeepor to assign ID numbers to
rules is unsuccessful, because ID numbers are a substantive aspect of
a rule (as they affect precedence), so Rule 2140 (Power Controls
Mutability) prevents em (who has Power 0) from modifying it.  2140
takes precedence.

Except that it might not, because by the time Rules 2140 and 2141 were
purportedly assigned ID numbers (shortly after they were created in
April 2007), their bodies were already in place and in conflict about
whether they could be assigned ID numbers-- with the normal ID number
precedence mechanism impotent to resolve the conflict.

Either way, just about every conflict since then that involved a rule
with ID number > 2141 actually involved a rule with no ID number, and
was thus indeterminate, unless this was somehow fixed by ratification.

(Before Rules 2140 and 2141 were enacted, the equivalent of Power
Controls Mutability only applied to proposals, so it was not an


Judge Murphy's Arguments:

I interpret "modify" as limited to changing an existing value, not
initializing an aspect that previously lacked a value.