This distribution of proposals and the subsequent assigning of ID
numbers initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt proposals
6686-6694. The eligible voters for these proposals are the active
players as of this message; their voting limits are defined by Rules
1950 or 2156 and 2279, as appropriate. The vote collector for these
Decisions is the Assessor. The valid options on each decision are FOR
and AGAINST (voters may also be PRESENT). These decisions are all
ordinary to begin with.
NUM II AI SUBMITTER CHAMBER TITLE
6686 1 2.0 coppro Purple Cleanup in Aisle 2156
6687 0 3.0 coppro Purple Singularize
6688 1 1.0 comex Purple Proposal
6689 1 1.0 comex Purple Proposal
6690 1 1.0 comex Purple Proposal
6691 1 2.0 coppro Purple Fun While They Lasted
6692 1 2.0 coppro Purple We Have No Protectorates
6693 0 1.5 coppro Purple Hawk Cleanup
6694 1 1.7 comex Purple Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID: 6686
Title: Cleanup in Aisle 2156
Author: coppro
AI: 2.0
II: 1
Chamber: Purple
Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) to read as follows
The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are the players who
were active at the start of its voting period. The voting limit
of a player on an ordinary decision is defined elsewhere in the
rules, but is fixed at the resolution of the Decision and
thereafter CANNOT change, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
This restriction does not prevent a change that would change a
voting limit from occurring; it only prevents it from actually
effecting that limit.
Enact a new Rule at power 2, entitled Chamber and Title, that reads as
follows:
Chamber is a switch possessed by players, proposals in the
Proposal Pool, and ongoing Agoran Decisions to adopt Proposals.
The possible values for Chamber are Green, Red, and
Purple. Green is superior to Purple, Red is superior to Green, and
Purple is superior to Red; the opposite of superior is inferior.
The default is Green in case of players, the Chamber of
the author in case of proposals, and the Chamber of the proposal
in question in case of a Decision. These are not continuously
updated, but evaluated only as the entity comes into being.
A player CAN change eir Title by announcement if e has not
already done so previously in the same month. In the same message
in which a player submits a proposal, e CAN set its Chamber by
announcement. Changes to Title are secured.
The Assessor tracks the Chamber of players and the Promotor
tracks the Chamber of proposals.
The Chamber of a player may also be referred to as eir Title;
this does not extend to proposals or Decisions. A player may be
referred to as a "<foo> player", where <foo> is eir Chamber.
Retitle Rule 2279 (Base Voting Limits) to (Voting Limits on Ordinary
Decisions) and amend it to read as follows:
A player's voting limit on an Ordinary decision is the result of
performing the following steps, in order:
(1) Take the following value, depending on the relationship
between the player's Chamber and the Chamber of the
Decision:
(a) If eir Chamber is superior, it is 2, else
(b) If eir Chamber is inferior, it is 1, else
(c) If the Chambers are identical, it is 5.
(2) Reduce the value by half the number of Rests owned by
the player.
(3) Apply any other adjustments defined in other rules, in
numerical order unless otherwise specified.
(4) Round the value to the nearest non-negative integer,
breaking ties upward.
This rule takes precedence over any other rule which would
modify a player's voting limit on an ordinary Decision.
Amend Rule 2255 by replacing
Title: Chief Whip.
Position: The Chief Whip's voting limit on an Ordinary proposal
is 1.5 times what it would otherwise be.
with
Title: Chief Whip.
Position: The Chief Whip's voting limit on an ordinary Decision
is 1.5 times what it would otherwise be; this applies after other
calculations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID: 6687
Title: Singularize
Author: coppro
AI: 3.0
II: 0
Chamber: Purple
Amend Rule 2150 (Personhood) by replacing the first instance of "rules"
with "a rule".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID: 6688
Title: Proposal
Author: comex
AI: 1.0
II: 1
Chamber: Purple
Enact a new Power=1 Rule reading:
comex CAN cause this rule to amend itself by announcement, as
long as e published the amendment for public review at least 24
hours ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID: 6689
Title: Proposal
Author: comex
AI: 1.0
II: 1
Chamber: Purple
Enact a new Power=1 Rule reading:
comex CAN cause this rule to amend itself by announcement, as
long as e published the amendment for public review at least 24
hours ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID: 6690
Title: Proposal
Author: comex
AI: 1.0
II: 1
Chamber: Purple
Enact a new Power=1 Rule reading:
comex CAN cause this rule to amend itself by announcement, as
long as e published the amendment for public review at least 24
hours ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID: 6691
Title: Fun While They Lasted
Author: coppro
AI: 2.0
II: 1
Chamber: Purple
Repeal Rule 2271 (Ongoing Change).
Repeal Rule 2272 (Leadership Tokens).
Repeal Rule 2273 (Coups de Grace).
Amend Rule 2269 (Couple Coups) to read as follows:
A coup is either a coup d'etat or a chicken coup.
When a player begins a coup, the coup is a coup d'etat if it has
been at least one month since any player last Formed the
Government (if ever) and since the last coup d'etat (if ever) and
if the player beginning the coup is not the Speaker, a chicken
coup otherwise.
The effects of the various varieties of coup are defined
elsewhere in the rules.
Amend Rule 2270 (Coups D'etat) to read as follows:
When a player begins a coup d'etat, an Emergency Session is
called. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the roll call of
this Emergency Session is the set of players who were Senators
and not Ministers when the Emergency Session is called, plus the
player who began the coup.
Amend Rule 2274 (Government) by appending "A member of the Government is
a Minister."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID: 6692
Title: We Have No Protectorates
Author: coppro
AI: 2.0
II: 1
Chamber: Purple
Repeal Rule 2147 (Protectorates).
Repeal Rule 2148 (The Ambassador).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID: 6693
Title: Hawk Cleanup
Author: coppro
AI: 1.5
II: 0
Chamber: Purple
Amend Rule 2203 (Hawkishness) to read as follows:
Hawkishness is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the
Courts, with the following values:
* Hanging. Hanging players are unqualified to be assigned as
judge of any inquiry case.
* Hugging. Hugging players are unqualified to be assigned as
judge of any criminal case.
* Hemming-and-Hawing (default).
* Hovering. Hovering players are poorly qualified to be
assigned as judge of any inquiry case, unless there is no
non-inquiry case requiring assignment, at least one inquiry
case requiring assignment, and no such inquiry case with any
non-Hovering player well-qualified to be assigned to it.
Changes to hawkishness are secured.
A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID: 6694
Title: Prejudice
Author: comex
AI: 1.7
II: 1
Chamber: Purple
Amend Rule 2226 (Judicial Rank) by replacing:
When a judgement is overruled on appeal, if the prior judge's
judicial rank is higher than 0, then it is decreased by 1.
with:
When an appeal of a judicial case is judged with prejudice, if
the prior judge's judicial rank is higher than 0, then it is
decreased by 1.
Amend Rule 911 (Appeal Cases) by replacing:
An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is
applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The
valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their
effects, are as follows, based on the appropriateness of the
prior judgement at the time it was delivered:
with:
An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is
applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The
valid judgements for the question on disposition are of the form
"<action> with prejudice" or "<action> without prejudice". Such
a judgement is generally appropriate if and only if
(1) the action is appropriate, and
(2) the judgement is with prejudice if and only if the prior
judge made an error in eir judgement which could have been
reasonably avoided, or generally inappropriately discharged
eir duties in the case.
The valid values of <action> and their associated effects are as
follows:
and by replacing:
* REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the
appropriateness of the prior judgement
with:
* REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about whether
the prior judgement was appropriate
and by replacing:
* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the
appropriateness of the prior judgement
with:
* REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about whether
the prior judgement was appropriate
and by replacing:
deliver a judgement of either REMAND or REASSIGN, whichever e
feels is most appropriate.
with:
judgement of either REMAND or REASSIGN with or without
prejudice, whichever e feels is most appropriate.
and by adding this paragraph after the list of judgements:
The appropriateness of the prior judgement is measured at the
time it was assigned.
[Greater flexibility in appeal cases: judge X with prejudice if it's
the judge's fault, or X without prejudice otherwise. Currently, the
penalty for OVERRULE punishes said-TRUE-when-I-meant-FALSE, but does
not address cases where, say, the judge made a grossly inappropriate
judgement, but the issue is too important for the panel to choose a
replacement judgement. Some combinations are less likely than others,
but I can think of reasons to use any combination of action and
prejudice, so they are all allowed.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-coppro
