I vote FOR on all. On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 12:36 PM Rose Strong <rose.stron...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I vote FOR on all. > > On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 7:15 PM Aris Merchant via agora-official < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> PROMOTOR'S REPORT; BACKDATED IN PART TO 03:00 UTC June 6, 2021. >> >> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it, >> and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote >> collector >> is the Assessor, the quorum is 3, the voting method is AI-majority, and >> the >> valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are >> conditional votes). >> >> ID Author(s) AI Title >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 8561& G., nix 2.0 Election Cycle >> 8562* ATMunn, Aris 3.0 Officializing Discord >> 8563& Aris 1.7 Determinacy is a Good Thing >> 8564& Aris 1.0 Sponsorship is not Co-authorship >> 8565& Aris 1.0 Popularity Contest >> 8566* Jason 3.0 Anti-AI escalation >> 8567* Jason 3.0 AI voting method clarification >> 8568* Jason 3.0 Supporter/Objector clarification >> 8569* Jason, Aris, Murphy 3.0 Fixing Festivals >> 8570* Jason 3.1 Emergency Regulation Clarification >> 8571& Jason 2.0 Gauntlet announcement patch >> 8572& Jason, Trigon 2.0 Thou shalt not disobey Trigon >> >> Pool report: At 03:00 UTC on June 6, 2021, the proposal pool >> contained (only) the above proposals. >> >> Legend: <ID>* : Democratic proposal. >> <ID>& : Ordinary proposal. >> <ID>~ : Unsponsored proposal. >> >> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where >> the information shown below differs from the information shown above, >> the information shown above shall control. >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> ID: 8561 >> Title: Election Cycle >> Adoption index: 2.0 >> Author: G. >> Co-author(s): nix >> >> >> Create a power=2 rule, "The Election Cycle", with the following text: >> >> A holder of an elected office who did not become its holder by >> winning an election, and has not won an election for that office >> since, is an interim holder. An elected office that is either >> vacant or has an interim holder is an interim office. >> >> An office is term-limited if the most recent election for that >> office was resolved more than the length of that office's term >> prior. The term for the office of Prime Minister is 90 days. The >> term for all other elected offices is 180 days. >> >> A player CAN initiate an election for a specified elected office: >> >> a) with 2 support, if either the office is interim or term- >> limited, and provided that the initiator becomes a candidate >> in the same message. >> >> b) By announcement, if e is the ADoP (or, if the office is the >> ADoP, if e is the Assessor) and the office is interim, or if >> e is the holder of that office. >> >> Once per quarter, the ADoP CAN and SHALL publish a Notice of >> Election specifying between 2-4 term-limited offices (if there >> fewer than 2 term-limited offices, the ADoP MUST instead list >> all of them). Such a notice initiates elections for the >> specified offices. The ADoP SHOULD prioritize offices that >> have gone longest since their last elections. >> >> The above notwithstanding, an election for an office CANNOT be >> initiated if one is already in progress. >> >> >> [Delete this section added to the previous rule - better gathers >> election procedure rules in one place]. >> >> Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by removing: >> A holder of an elected office who did not become its holder by >> winning an election, and has not won an election for that office >> since, is an interim holder. An elected office that is either >> vacant or has an interim holder is an interim office. >> >> >> [For the below rule, remove text placed in the new rule above, >> and add the Assessor as the vote collector for ADoP elections]. >> >> Amend Rule 2154 (Election Procedure) to read in full: >> >> When an election is initiated, it enters the nomination period, >> which lasts for 4 days. After an election is initiated and until >> nominations close, any player CAN become a candidate by >> announcement. A candidate ceases to be a candidate if e ceases to >> be a player during the election or if holding the office would >> make em Overpowered. During the nomination period, a candidate CAN >> cease to be a candidate by announcement if there is at least one >> other candidate. >> >> An election whose nomination period is complete is contested if it >> has two or more candidates, and uncontested otherwise. Nominations >> close at the end of the poll's voting period or when the election >> is ended, whichever comes first. >> >> After the nomination period ends, the ADoP (or, if the office is >> the ADoP, the Assessor) CAN and, in a timely fashion, SHALL: >> >> 1) If the election is contested, initiate an Agoran decision to >> select the winner of the election (the poll). For this >> decision, the Vote Collector is the ADoP (or, if the office >> is the ADoP, the Assessor), the valid options are >> the candidates for that election (including those who become >> candidates after its initiation), and the voting method is >> instant runoff. When the poll is resolved, its outcome, if a >> player, wins the election. If the outcome is not a player, the >> election ends with no winner. >> >> 2) If POSSIBLE per the following paragraph, end the election >> immediately. >> >> If at any point an uncontested election has a single candidate, >> then any player CAN by announcement declare em the winner of the >> election, thereby causing em to win the election. If at any point >> an uncontested election has no candidates, then any player CAN >> declare the election ended with no winner by announcement. >> >> When a player wins an election, e is installed into the associated >> office and the election ends. >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> ID: 8562 >> Title: Officializing Discord >> Adoption index: 3.0 >> Author: ATMunn >> Co-author(s): Aris >> >> >> The Publicity switch of the Discord server having the ID of >> 724077429412331560 and being accessible from the permanent invite link >> of https://discord.gg/tz2u6m7 is hereby flipped to Discussion. >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> ID: 8563 >> Title: Determinacy is a Good Thing >> Adoption index: 1.7 >> Author: Aris >> Co-author(s): >> >> >> [Note that Gaelan's win should have been processed by the time >> this is adopted, unless there's an appeal.] >> >> Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgements", by removing the text: >> >> * PARADOXICAL, appropriate if the statement is logically >> undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other irresovable >> logical situation. PARADOXICAL is not appropriate if IRRELEVANT >> is appropriate, nor is it appropriate if the undecidability >> arises from the case itself or in reference to it. >> >> and: >> >> DISMISS is not appropriate if PARADOXICAL is appropriate. >> >> Repeal Rule 2553, "Win by Paradox". >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> ID: 8564 >> Title: Sponsorship is not Co-authorship >> Adoption index: 1.0 >> Author: Aris >> Co-author(s): >> >> >> [It's always felt weird to me that pending a proposal now >> makes you a co-author. That's not what co-authorship >> means, IMO. Also, it goes against my mental invariant >> that proposals are immutable after creation.] >> >> Amend rule 2622, "Pending Proposals", by deleting the text: >> >> If the player did not create the proposal and is not >> listed in the list of co-authors of the proposal, >> e is added to the list of co-authors. >> >> [For context, here's the current text of the paragraph: >> >> Any player CAN pay 1 Pendant to flip the Pended switch of a >> specified proposal to True. If the player did not create the >> proposal and is not listed in the list of co-authors of the >> proposal, e is added to the list of co-authors. When e does so, >> the proposal becomes sponsored.] >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> ID: 8565 >> Title: Popularity Contest >> Adoption index: 1.0 >> Author: Aris >> Co-author(s): >> >> >> Enact a new power 1.0 Rule entitled "Popularity Contest", >> with the following text: >> >> Immediately after the adoption of this rule, Aris wins the >> game. Then, for each person who voted unconditionally FOR the >> referendum on the proposal that enacted this rule, this >> rule causes that person to earn a Black Ribbon. >> >> Aris CAN cause this rule to make a specified player >> earn a Black Ribbon by announcement. Aris can >> cause this rule to award a specified player >> a specified patent title containing the >> string "Popular" by announcement. >> >> If it has been at least one month since this rule >> was adopted, any person CAN End the Contest >> by announcement, causing this rule to repeal itself. >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> ID: 8566 >> Title: Anti-AI escalation >> Adoption index: 3.0 >> Author: Jason >> Co-author(s): >> >> >> Amend rule 1950 by appending the following to the first paragraph: " If >> a referendum has an adoption index less than the adoption index of its >> associated proposal, the referendum's adoption index is immediately set >> to that of the associated proposal". >> >> [Prevents a potential 2->3 power escalation where a Power 2 dictatorship >> can set the AI of the referendum on an AI 3 proposal to 1, then force it >> through at AI 1.] >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> ID: 8567 >> Title: AI voting method clarification >> Adoption index: 3.0 >> Author: Jason >> Co-author(s): >> >> >> Amend Rule 1950 by replacing "For any Agoran decision with an adoption >> index" with "For any Agoran decision with a non-"none" adoption index". >> >> [Legislates the decision in CFJ 3746. All Agoran decisions possess an >> adoption index switch, but some of them have the value "none".] >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> ID: 8568 >> Title: Supporter/Objector clarification >> Adoption index: 3.0 >> Author: Jason >> Co-author(s): >> >> >> Amend Rule 2124 by replacing the following: >> >> { >> >> The above notwithstanding, if an action is to be performed without >> N objections or with N Agoran consent, and an objection to an >> intent to perform it has been withdrawn within the past 24 hours, >> then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent. >> >> The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent >> if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. >> >> A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent >> before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same >> type of response. >> >> } >> >> with the following: >> >> { >> >> The above notwithstanding, if an action is to be performed without N >> objections or with N Agoran consent, and an entity has ceased to be an >> Objector to that intent within the past 24 hours, then Agora is not >> Satisfied with that intent. >> >> The above notwithstanding, Agora is not Satisfied with an intent if the >> Speaker has become an Objector to it in the last 48 hours. >> >> An entity is not considered a Supporter or Objector to an intent solely >> due to a purported support or objection made before the intent was >> announced. An entity is not considered a Supporter to an intent if e has >> previously ceased to be a Supporter, and e is not considered an Objector >> to an intent if e has previously ceased to be an Objector. >> >> } >> >> [In each paragraph, use Objector/Supportor status instead of evaluating >> whether objections were withdrawn. For instance, it has been previously >> pointed out (in private conversation) that the Speaker could potentially >> completely block an intent by objecting multiple times. Additionally, in >> the third paragraph, extend the restrictions to entities instead of just >> persons (since the definition of Supporter/Objector applies to entities, >> rather than persons).] >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> ID: 8569 >> Title: Fixing Festivals >> Adoption index: 3.0 >> Author: Jason >> Co-author(s): Aris, Murphy >> >> >> Amend Rule 2124 by replacing the following text: >> >> { >> >> The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform >> an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by >> the document authorizing the dependent action. >> >> } >> >> with the following text: >> >> { >> >> A document that authorizes a dependent action, by default, implicitly >> asserts that all players are eligible to support or object to an intent >> to perform that action; if the document is a rule, conflicts about >> eligibility (including conflicts with such an implicit assertion) are >> resolved using the normal procedures. >> >> } >> >> >> Set the power of Rule 2480 (Festivals) to 3.1. >> >> Set the power of Rule 2481 (Festival Restrictions) to 3.1. >> >> >> Amend Rule 2481 (Festival Restrictions) by replacing "Non-Festive >> players are never considered Supporters of a dependent action" with >> "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, non-Festive players are not >> eligible to support a dependent action". >> >> >> [Currently, eligibility to object/support to a dependent action is >> defined wholly by the rule defining the action. This breaks the festival >> rule that non-festive players are not considered supporters. This >> proposal changes the definition of eligibility so that it uses the >> normal precedence rules, then raises the power of Festivals so that it >> applies to the highest-power dependent action (emergency regulation >> changes).] >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> ID: 8570 >> Title: Emergency Regulation Clarification >> Adoption index: 3.1 >> Author: Jason >> Co-author(s): >> >> >> Amend Rule 2614 by replacing "Award Patent Titles not mentioned in any >> Rule and Badges" with "Award Patent Titles that are either Badges or are >> not mentioned in any Rule". >> >> [Just a minor wording tweak, this has always looked weird to me.] >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> ID: 8571 >> Title: Gauntlet announcement patch >> Adoption index: 2.0 >> Author: Jason >> Co-author(s): >> >> >> Amend Rule 2644 (The Gauntlet) to read, in whole: >> >> { >> >> A player CAN, by announcement, Notice the Gauntlet, specifying a single >> player that owns 5 or more stones. When e does, the specified player >> Wields the Gauntlet. >> >> When a player Wields the Gauntlet, e wins the game, then all existing >> stones are transferred to Agora. >> >> } >> >> [This removes the possibility of accidentally causing someone to Wield >> the Gauntlet by changing the "correct announcement" to a specific >> action. For instance, I am concerned that a Stonemason's weekly report >> might be considered such an announcement.] >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> ID: 8572 >> Title: Thou shalt not disobey Trigon >> Adoption index: 2.0 >> Author: Jason >> Co-author(s): Trigon >> >> >> Amend Rule 2545 by appending the following to the paragraph beginning >> "When the rules authorize": "Persons who voluntarily participate in an >> auction (including the auctioneer) SHALL NOT violate requirements that >> auction's method that are clearly intended to be punishable as rules >> violations; doing so is the Class N Crime of Auction >> Manipulation, where N is the class specified in the auction method (or 2 >> otherwise)." >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> >
