On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:06 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-17 at 19:57 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk >> > wrote: >> > >> > I pend that proposal, using the mechanism in the rule "Reward and >> > Delay". >> >> I can't distribute these until you convince a judge that your >> non-dictatorship exists. The technical evidence alone is convoluted, >> and that's ignoring quorum. I don't want to violate the SHALL NOT on >> distributing proposals that aren't pending. Hmm. Maybe you could say >> that you pend them by the regular method if they're not already >> pending. On the other hand, that might create more bookkeeping for >> the Secretary... > > If you think it's at all controversial, you should call a CFJ. I > thought it was pretty much uncontroversial, though. (Note also that if > you reasonably believe the proposal to be pending, distributing it is > not considered unreasonable and, under most previous rulesets, would > not be something that you could be punished for. Right now, punishments > are decided by Referee fiat, but I can't see a reasonable Referee > punishing you for that.) > > The whole issue with quorum actually makes the timing irrelevant. You > could still have blocked the scam even after the "end of the voting > period"; the proposal was clearly inquorate at the scheduled end of the > voting period, which causes the voting period to be extended (rule > 2168, and formerly a very common occurrence in Agora, until the quorum > rule changed in 2014). As such, any votes or withdrawals would count > even if they were late, up until the Assessor ended its voting period > by announcement (e did so in the resolution message); I was kind-of > terrified that someone would notice this and lead to another timing > fight (even though it'd be one that could be easily won with the > Assessor's help), but luckily nobody did. > > Finally, just before the scam proposal was resolved, a different > proposal was resolved (in a separate message) with four votes (I'd > intentionally withdrawn ballots from it so that it would have four > votes exactly, disguising that as a panicked attempt to stop it passing > in an attempt to hide my ulterior motive), which set quorum to 1, > meaning that the scam proposal couldn't possibly be inquorate if it had > any votes at all. (This is a clear bug in the quorum rule, and one that > I'd dropped in there intentionally back in 2014; my other fix proposal > is intended to close that loophole now that I've made it public by > using it, because leaving it around seems like a bad idea.) > > -- > ais523 I think I missed that. It's all very reasonable logic. I'll be happy to distribute them with my next run unless someone else cares to call a CFJ presenting some novel argument.
-Aris
