On 2020-06-03 17:00, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion wrote:
On Jun 3, 2020, at 18:48, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion
<[email protected]> wrote:
Parties to this contract should signal their own messages. They
should also, if a message that should be signaled lacks signaling,
reply to that message, signaling their own message and stating that
the quoted message contains actions that should be signaled.
I’m not sure how I feel about this clause. I apologize for not raising this at
an earlier draft, but I wonder whether this will actually help or just serve to
make the mailing list busier. I think if it becomes near universal, this will
be good because the collective impact will be minimally busying and will allow
everyone to read fewer messages if they don’t want to; otherwise, I think it
will just crowd the mailing list.
I'm sorry, I don't know if I follow this logic here. Which section do
you have qualms about? The "signaling their own messages" or the
"signaling for other's messages" part?
A list of actions that should be so signaled and the appropriate
signals is included below, sorted by which office they are most
pertinent to the duties of. If the specified action signal is already
included in the subject of the message, players should signal the
office instead.
I’m confused by this. This seems to imply that both the action and the office
should be signaled.
The intention was that if the subject line is "Quangor Election",
players don't need to say something redundant like "[Election] Quangor
Election" because that would be redundant; instead they would say
"[Attn: ADoP] Quangor Election". I would find this more intuitive, but I
am open to changing it a bit.
Maybe also include something for contracts?
Apart from what's already in the Notary section?
* Notary
* Creation and destruction of pledges: [Pledge]
* Creation and destruction of contracts: [Contract]
* Any action defined or permitted by a contract: either that
contract's full name or an easily identifiable part of that
contract's name that cannot be confused with that of another
existing contract.
2. Respecting Drafts: the act of not performing actions that would cause
an officer to be required to update already-published drafts.
What about things like the Promotor’s report where back-dating is permissible?
It seems that this would have little force in that regard.
Ironically, the Promotor's report was the inspiration to start this,
before Aris mentioned that e could backdate eir reports. I'm open to
suggestions on this point. It could just say "except when back-dating is
permissible" I guess.
Parties to this contract should respect drafts except when urgent
action is required and when the rules require them to take said
actions.
I think this should be an or not an and.
Took me a bit to parse this sentence, but I agree that it would be helpful.
--
Trigon
