Voting results for Proposals 5190 - 5198:
[This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
following proposals. For each decision, the options available to
Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED, and FAILED QUORUM (!).]
NUM FL AI SUBMITTER TITLE
5190 Oi 1 comex infrared VCs
*5191 Oi 1 root Voting period extensions
*5192 Oi 1 root Fix Contests
5193 Di 2 Zefram calendar cleanup
*5194 Oi 1.7 Zefram equity court
*5195 Di 3 Zefram stronger definition of paradox
5196 Di 3 Zefram empty throne
*5197 Di 2 Zefram spending multiple VCs on VVLOP
5198 Di 3 BobTHJ Make Bob's messages valid
5190 5191 5192 5193 5194 5195 5196 5197 5198
BobTHJ F F P F P P F F F
comex 8F 8F 8F A 8F F A F F
Levi 5F 4F+A A+4F A P F A A A
Murphy 5A 5A 5F F 5F F A F A
Pavitra 4A 4F 4F F 4F F F A A
root 11A 11F 11F A 11F F F F A
Zefram 15A 15F 15F F 15F F F F A
AI 1 1 1 2 1.7 3 3 2 3
VI 0.4 7.1+ 47 1.3+ *U* *U* 1.3+ 2.5 0.4
F/A 14/35 43/6 47/1 4/3 43/0 6/0 4/3 5/2 2/5
Quorum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Voters 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
comex's additional votes were invalid due to VLOP.
I'm interpreting comex's retraction ("3 = 4 and I retract all my votes
on P5194") as individually true and/or effective, despite being part of
a false compound statement. If it wasn't, then Proposal 5194 was still
adopted (35/8).
Murphy's additional votes on Proposal 5195 were invalid due to VLDP.
root's original votes on Proposals 5190 and 5195 were retracted.
If Levi won on August 20, then:
Proposal 5190 was still rejected (9/16) but without a Red VC penalty
Proposal 5191 was still adopted (21/4)
Proposal 5192 was still adopted (23/1)
Proposal 5194 was still adopted (20/0) with an Orange VC award
Text of adopted proposals:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal 5191 (Ordinary, AI=1, Interested) by root
Voting period extensions
Create a new rule titled "Extending the voting period" that reads:
Whenever the voting period of an Agoran decision would end, and
the result would be FAILED QUORUM, the length of the voting
period for that decision will immediately be doubled, provided
this has not already happened for the decision in question.
Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision
SHOULD issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who
have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 5192 (Ordinary, AI=1, Interested) by root
Fix Contests
Amend Rule 2136 by replacing the text reading:
A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to
one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e
was contestmaster of a different contest for at least 3 days of
the previous week.
with:
A contestmaster may award a total of up to 10 points per week to
one or more contestants as permitted by the contest, unless e
is contestmaster of a different contest simultaneously or has
been at any time during the preceding span of seven days.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 5194 (Ordinary, AI=1.7, Interested) by Zefram
equity court
Enact a power=1.7 rule with title "Equity Cases" and text
There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.
An equity case's purpose is to correct a potential injustice in
the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be
initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which
clearly identifies the contract, the set of parties to the
contract, and a state of affairs whereby events have not
proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not
limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual
obligations).
The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase.
During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the
pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform all
the contracting parties of the case and invite them to submit
arguments regarding the equitability of the situation. The
pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so
informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that
they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.
The parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned
as judge of the case.
An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is
applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The
valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements
that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.
A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably
equitable resolution of the the situation at hand with respect
to the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the
parties in the course of the case.
When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a
judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past
week, the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement between
the parties. In this role it is subject to modification or
termination by the usual processes governing binding agreements.
An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity
case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a
judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any party to
the contract in question by announcement.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 5195 (Democratic, AI=3, Interested) by Zefram
stronger definition of paradox
Amend rule 2110 to read
If an inquiry case on the possibility of a rule-defined action
or the permissibility of an action results in a judgement of
UNDECIDABLE, and that judgement is not appealed within a week,
then the initiator of the inquiry case wins the game if e is a
player. This can only occur once per inquiry case.
[The reformed judicial system provides a clear way to indicate a legal
paradox, so let's use it. Requiring the use of a CFJ for the win by
paradox avoids a lot of woolliness in the first clause of the current
R2110, and also makes it easier to establish who should get the win.]
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 5197 (Democratic, AI=2, Interested) by Zefram
spending multiple VCs on VVLOP
Amend rule 2126 by replacing the text
a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase
another player's VVLOP by one.
b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase
eir own VVLOP by one.
c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease
another player's VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease
another player's VVLOP by ten percent.
with
a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase
another player's VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase
eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease
another player's VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply
another player's VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
[Generalises all current ways to spend VCs on VVLOP, to produce
progressively greater per-VC effect as the number of colors involved
rises. With rare colors around, this introduces a tension between the
efficiency of spending more colors at once and the desire to collect
all colors for the palette win (if that's adopted). In some cases
it's even worth transferring VCs (via the one-for-two mechanism) in
order to cooperate in a VC spend.]
