On 9/7/19 5:24 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 18:46, Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/7/19 6:46 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
CoE: 12/4 >= 3.0, so this should be ADOPTED.
-twg
Accepted. The resolution code has been updated so that this won't happen
again.
Revision:
PROPOSAL 8232 ("Increased transparency v1.1")
FOR (4): Jacob Arduino, Jason Cobb, Trigon, twg
AGAINST (1): G.
PRESENT (2): Aris, Falsifian
BALLOTS: 7
AI (F/A): 12/4 (AI=3.0)
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
Don't you need to say that you resolve it? Ideally in an unconditional
announcement so R2034 kicks in.
I think there's something interesting here - resolving a proposal is
both an action and a self-ratifying public document. As far as I can
tell, it's the only thing in the rules that behaves this way (although
distribution is similar, but doesn't use self-ratification).
I was required by R2201 to respond to twg's CoE, since the resolution
was a self-ratifying document, but I wasn't required by law to attempt
to resolve it again. Although, if the first attempt failed, it would
still be a crime to fail to resolve the decision in a timely fashion.
But, if the first attempt succeeded, then the second attempted
resolution was INEFFECTIVE. Self-ratification might fix that, but, since
a decision that was already resolved can't be re-resolved, that might
fall under the "inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules"
clause of R1551, making it fail to ratify. The first attempt definitely
won't self-ratify because of the CoE.
So, we have to figure out whether the first attempt at resolution was
EFFECTIVE.
R208 reads, in part:
The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve
it by announcement, indicating the outcome. If it was required to
be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it in a timely fashion after
the end of the voting period. To be valid, this announcement must
satisfy the following conditions:
1. It is published after the voting period has ended.
2. It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.
3. It specifies the number of voters (or a list of the voters).
For these purposes and for determining quorum, a "voter" is
someone who submitted a ballot on the decision that was valid
when it was submitted and also valid (i.e. not withdrawn or
otherwise invalidated) at the end of the voting period.
4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there
was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters'
valid ballots.
R. Lee found in CFJ 3638 [0] that an action that creates something that
is not "valid" does not render the action INEFFECTIVE. This would seem
to imply that the word "valid" doesn't have a special meaning in
determining whether an action is EFFECTIVE or not. If so, then we need
not consider the list, leaving
The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve
it by announcement, indicating the outcome.
I note that this says "the outcome", not "an outcome" (or similar), so I
think a resolution attempt is only EFFECTIVE if it correctly specifies
the outcome. This would mean the first attempted resolution was
INEFFECTIVE, so the second attempted resolution would be EFFECTIVE.
[0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3638
--
Jason Cobb
