If I were the assessor, I wouldn't make this pledge personally. It's
far too constraining for a few votes, and as I mentioned there's some
good and valid reasons to resolve out-of-order, and 5 is a high bar.
Your original intent was just to make sure 8133 was resolved before the
others in this batch. There are no prior batches in the pipeline or
any reason in the current batch to go out-of-order. You could just
say "unless e pledges to resolve 8133 before e resolves any other
decision".
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> Let me try to fix this again.
> I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to:
> ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window lasting
> until 60 days after eir time acting as Assessor has ended, to always
> resolve proposals in numerical order, unless e recieves 5 consent to do
> otherwise, and to never deputize anyone who has not made a pledge identical
> to eirs, the breaking of which is a Class N crime, for some N greater than
> or equal to 6
> AGAINST otherwise
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
> Date: Nov 27, 2018 11:27
> Subject: Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
> To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>
> Cc:
>
> On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 08:20 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I
> > don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing
> > the ability to easily clean up some mess.
>
> It could potentially work as a counterscam, but if we need to do this
> in an emergency, we could just have the Assessor resign and then have
> someone deputise to resolve them in the required order.
>
> Come to think of it, the pledge being requested here could be worked
> around via resigning Assessor (ending the pledge) then immediately
> deputising yourself to resolve the proposals out of order.
>
>
> --
> ais523
>
