On 6/20/23 18:33, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 3:16 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>> On 6/20/23 17:48, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> I believe I won the rice game on 12 June - not sure though. Here are
>>> my notes, wouldn't be at all surprised if I missed something critical.
>>>
>>> ---------------------------
>>> 5-22 harvested plan
>>> Created: snail
>>> Up: {4st, beokirby, blob, inalienableWright, nix, snail, Yachay},
>>> Down: {Aspen, ais523, cuddlybanana, G., Janet, juan, Murphy}
>>> Signatures: snail, Yachay, 4st, beokirby
>>>
>>> After 5-22 harvest
>>> 4st 1
>>> beokirby 1
>>> blob 1
>>> iWright* 1
>>> nix 1
>>> snail 1
>>> Yachay 1
>>>
>>> ---------------------------
>>> 5-29 harvested plan
>>> Created: 2023-05-22 by juan
>>> Up: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
>>> Down: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
>>> Signatures: ais523, juan, G., Janet
>>>
>>> After 5-29 harvest
>>> Aspen 1
>>> G. 1
>>> Janet 1
>>> Murphy 1
>>> ais523 1
>>> cuddlybanana 1
>>> Juan 1
>>>
>>> ---------------------------
>>> Note: ais523 had 1 rice at the time of Proposal 8989's alleged adoption
>>> (just before the 6-05 plans were harvested). So that proposal was
>>> resolved incorrectly and the victory condition remains 2 rice.
>>>
>>> Proposal 8988 was adopted, but I'm assuming that plans and signatures
>>> were continuous as the definitions didn't change over-much, and the
>>> winning plan below was signed in a way (by announcement/announced
>>> consent) that works under both rule versions. This, of course, is
>>> arguable.
>>> ---------------------------
>>> 6-05 harvested plan
>>> Created: 2023-06-04 by 4st
>>> Up: {G.}
>>> Down: {All active players with 1 or more rice at the time of creation,
>>> except 4st}
>>> Signatures: G., 4st
>>> (note: G is on both up and down lists)
>>>
>>> After 6-05 harvest
>>> G. 1
>>>
>>> ---------------------------
>>> 6-12 harvested plan
>>> Created: 2023-06-05 by Beokirby
>>> Up: {Beokirby, Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
>>> Down: {}
>>> Signatures: beokirby, juan
>>>
>>> After 6-12 harvest
>>> Beokirby 1
>>> Aspen 1
>>> G. 2
>>> Janet 1
>>> Murphy 1
>>> ais523 1
>>> cuddlybanana 1
>>> juan 1
>>> ---------------------------
>>>
>>> I did not track after this, due to not knowing if things were reset on 6-12
>>
>> This doesn't appear to account for the two proposals that might have
>> affected this (or maybe they weren't in the relevant time period)?
>>
>> I have no idea if disarmament passed, and I really don't have the energy
>> to untangle how the CFJs affected this myself.
> I listed my take on the two proposals in the middle of that text above
> (in the appropriate time sequence). Here it is again:
>
>>> Proposal 8988 was adopted, but I'm assuming that plans and signatures
>>> were continuous as the definitions didn't change over-much, and the
>>> winning plan below was signed in a way (by announcement/announced
>>> consent) that works under both rule versions. This, of course, is
>>> arguable.
> and
>
>>> Note: ais523 had 1 rice at the time of Proposal 8989's alleged adoption
>>> (just before the 6-05 plans were harvested). So that proposal was
>>> resolved incorrectly and the victory condition remains 2 rice.
> If either of these assumptions is incorrect, of course recalculations
> would be needed.
>
> To resolve this, if you don't have the energy, I'll deputize to
> resolve 8989 myself (I think the resolution is 14 days overdue, of
> course up to now that's been due to uncertainty).
>
> -G.
Oh, oops, sorry. Reading is hard.
If you're confidently saying that ais523's conditional vote should have
resolved to AGAINST, I can easily handle that. Thanks for untangling that.
I do disagree about P8988. I'll call a CFJ in a little bit if nobody
else has.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
