I issue a humiliating public reminder to the following persons for not
voting on the current Medals of Honour decision:
Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Corona, VJ Rada, Kenyon, Ouri, twg,
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, omd, o, Quazie, pokes, 天火狐、Telnaior
(Not really though, if you don't feel like either candidate deserves a
medal, then just don't vote and I'll fail it)
~Corona
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Corona <liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nah, I'd get rid of carrying the nominations over - if people don't care
> to give you a Medal of Honour, there's no reason to assume they will in the
> next month. (And there's no way to reject all of the nominees other than
> just not voting)
>
> I intend to Rubberstamp the following proposal as Herald, without 3
> Objections:
> "No quorum, no medal" AI = 1.0
>
> In rule 2529 "Medals of Honour", replace the following:
> "After a player is awarded a Medal of Honour, all players who were
> previously eligible for a Medal of Honour become no longer eligible."
>
> With:
> "After a resolution of an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal
> of Honour, all players who were previously eligible for a Medal of Honour
> become no longer eligible."
>
> ---END OF PROPOSAL---
>
> Could a player named FAILED QUORUM abuse the bug to get Medals of Honour?
> The rules don't state what kind of entity (if any) FAILED QUORUM is...
>
> Anyways, I initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal
> of Honour for June 2018.
> For this decision, the valid options are {Aris, ATMunn}. The vote
> collector is the Herald, and the voting method is instant-runoff. Quorum
> is 6.
>
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> FUN CONTINUATION:
>>
>> The rule also reads:
>> After a player is awarded a Medal of Honour, all
>> players who were previously eligible for a Medal of Honour become
>> no longer eligible.
>>
>> Since a "player" was not awarded the Medal, the previously-eligible
>> players are STILL eligible.
>>
>> Which means that ATMunn and Aris were in fact eligible when Corona
>> tried to start the Decision with the null set. (if you think about
>> it, it's a feature - if a winner isn't awarded, your eligibility
>> rolls over to the next decision).
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, ATMunn wrote:
>> > This what happens when you let new players (i.e. me) make proposals
>> without
>> > checking them that much. lol.
>> >
>> > On 6/11/2018 1:19 AM, Corona wrote:
>> > > Sure.
>> > >
>> > > I award FAILED QUORUM a Medal of Honour for May 2018. Wear it proudly,
>> > > FAILED QUORUM!
>> > >
>> > > ~Corona
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > However, by ais523's logic, from the previous Decision you're
>> supposed
>> > > > to award a Medal to FAILED QUORUM...?
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Corona wrote:
>> > > > > Ah, nevermind then.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ~Corona
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 10:52 PM, Kerim Aydin <
>> ke...@u.washington.edu>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > No, the whole thing just fails I'm afraid (Rule 2529/3):
>> > > > > > In the second Eastman week of an Agoran month, if there
>> are
>> > > > > > any
>> > > > > > players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the
>> Herald
>> > > > > > CAN,
>> > > > by
>> > > > > > announcement, initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to
>> be
>> > > > awarded
>> > > > > > a Medal of Honour.
>> > > > > > If there's no eligible players, there's no CAN for initiation.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Sun, 2018-06-10 at 22:26 +0200, Corona wrote:
>> > > > > > > > I initiate an Agoran Decision on who is to be awarded a
>> Medal of
>> > > > > > > > Honour for June 2018. For this decision, the valid options
>> are {}.
>> > > > > > > > The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting method is
>> > > > > > > > instant-
>> > > > > > > > runoff.
>> > > > > > > > Quorum is 6.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Huh, some fun rulesey stuff going on here. As far as I can
>> tell,
>> > > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > impossible to meaningfully vote on this, but it cannot fail
>> quorum;
>> > > > > > > rather, at the end of the voting period (which the Herald
>> SHALL end
>> > > > > > > early, and CAN do so by resolving it in the same message) it
>> ends
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > > a null outcome. The outcome of the vote is then awarded a
>> Medal of
>> > > > > > > Honour. Again as far as I can tell, there's nothing
>> restricting what
>> > > > > > > sort of entity can own a Medal of Honour, so it looks like
>> the Medal
>> > > > > > > owned by the null outcome is going to become a tracked part
>> of the
>> > > > > > > Herald report.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Unfortunately, the rules don't allow for the null outcome to
>> get a
>> > > > win
>> > > > > > > if this happens six times, but I think we should give it an
>> honorary
>> > > > > > > win by proposal if the situation ever comes up.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > ais523
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> >
>>
>
>
