This is missing my proposal, “summaries matter,” submitted about an hour ago.
Gaelan
> On Feb 23, 2020, at 9:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> Here's a draft report.
>
> -Aris
> ---
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum is 7, 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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 8342# Gaelan, [1] 2.0 Calls with Memoranda
> 8343j twg 1.7 Judicial Jocularity Act
> 8344* Alexis 3.0 Unsubstantive interpretation
> 8345# Jason 2.0 Self-punishment
> 8346* Jason, ais523 3.0 De-secure Black Ribbons v2
> 8347* Jason 3.0 R2141 power increase v2
>
> The proposal pool is currently empty.
>
> [1] Aris, G., Alexis
>
> Legend: <ID>* : Democratic proposal.
> <ID># : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber.
> <ID>e : Economy ministry proposal.
> <ID>f : Efficiency ministry proposal.
> <ID>j : Justice ministry proposal.
> <ID>l : Legislation ministry proposal.
> <ID>p : Participation ministry proposal.
>
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
>
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8342
> Title: Calls with Memoranda
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Gaelan
> Co-authors: Aris, G., Alexis
>
>
> Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {
> An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a judicial case,
> specifying a valid judgement for that case. Officers SHOULD only assign
> Administrative Opinions to cases with which eir office is primarily
> concerned.
> The Arbitor SHOULD record Administrative Opinions along with case judgements.
> An officer who has published an Administrative Opinion for an unassigned case
> may, without objection, Administratively Close a case, causing em to become
> the judge for the case and eir Administrative Opinion to become the judgment
> for the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge to a case while
> proceedings to Administratively Close it are ongoing.
> }
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8343
> Title: Judicial Jocularity Act
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: twg
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgement", by replacing each occurrence of
> "DISMISS" with "¯\_(ツ)_/¯".
>
> [Very few CFJs get judged DISMISS at the moment; I figure the generation
> of mirth outweighs the slight inconvenience of having to copy-and-paste
> it from the ruleset occasionally.]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8344
> Title: Unsubstantive interpretation
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing
> 'A "substantive" aspect of an instrument is any aspect that affects the
> instrument's operation.'
>
> with
>
> 'A "substantive" aspect of an instrument is any aspect that affects the
> instrument's operation, but does not include its interpretation."
> }
> [Interpretations between entities of different power are controlled by R217.]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8345
> Title: Self-punishment
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2555 (Blots) by inserting the following paragraph after the
> paragraph beginning "Levying fines and destroying blots":
>
> A person CAN, by announcement, create a specified number of blots in
> eir possession.
>
> Amend Rule 2535 (Zombies) by inserting the following list item before
> the item that says "deregister.":
>
> - create blots;
>
> [This is intended to allow contracts to provide enforcement mechanisms
> other than R1742's general "SHALL act in accordance with that contract".
> For example, a contract could grant an Enforcer the ability to act on
> behalf of other parties to create blots in the possession of the other
> party. This could also, potentially, reduce work on the Referee.
>
> The zombie provision is intended to prevent zombie owners from screwing
> over their zombies.]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8346
> Title: De-secure Black Ribbons v2
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-authors: ais523
>
>
> Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing the text "This rule does not
> specify any methods of obtaining Black Ribbons." with the text "An
> Instrument CAN, as part of its effect, cause a person to earn a Black
> Ribbon. When this occurs, this Rule awards that person a Black Ribbon.".
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8347
> Title: R2141 power increase v2
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Set Rule 2141's power to 3.1
>
> [Rationale: Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) defines
> (unsurprisingly) what rules are and what they can do. This is
> sufficiently important that it should take precedence over other power-3
> rules. This doesn't protect it from power-3 instruments (since nothing
> can), but it does help it from accidentally losing a precedence battle,
> especially with its relatively high ID number.]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
