Would also add G as coauthor (thanks for help researching history of the
rule) and use the proper handle for ais523 (will double-check with earlier
email to make sure I have it right).

On Mon., Feb. 18, 2019, 00:58 James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
> > On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal
> > > added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule
> > > after that?
> >
> > This was the change that added it:
> >  > Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016
> >
> > the clause that added it was straightforward:
> >
> >  > Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding:
> >  >       (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T
> Notice.
> >  > after bullet (3).
> >
> > The changes since then are unrelated.
> Thanks for looking into it!
> Also, I just noticed that Rule 1551 (Ratification) talks about "the
> gamestate", so now happy with D. Margaux's original approach.
> What would the AI of the proposal have to be? 3.05?
> Latest draft:
> Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2
> Co-authors: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk, D. Margaux
> Adoption Index: 3.05
> Text:
> The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect
> immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been
> made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now
> as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this
> proposal as part of the gamestate.)
> The amendment is to replace the text of Rule 2124 with:
>       A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible
>       entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn.
>       "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an
>       intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly
>       posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of
>       that intent.
>       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. However, the
>       previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is
>       not eligible to support it.
>       Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
>       unless at least one of the following is true:
>       1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there
>          are at least N Objectors to that intent.
>       2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are
>          fewer than than N Supporters of that intent.
>       3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the
>          number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N
>          times the number of Objectors to the intent.
>       The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, 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.

Reply via email to