Voting results for Proposals 7444-52:
[This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
following proposals. For each decision, the options available to
Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!).]
*7444 3.0 omd Make implicit votes sensitive to voting limit
increases
*7445 3.0 omd relative dimension in sanity
*7446 3.0 omd Chamber definition shuffle for consistency
*7447 3.0 omd Conditional votes should be Power-3
*7448 1.0 omd ceremonial shilling
x7449 3.0 Walker Rule Decisions Re Decisions are for Decision Rules
*7450 1.0 Machiavel Igora
*7451 3.0 omd Fix messy statements differently
*7452 3.0 omd secret votes redux
7444 7445 7446 7447 7448 7449 7450 7451 7452
Murphy 4P 4F 4F 4F 4F 4F 4F 4F 4F
omd 9F 9F 9F 9F 9F 9A 9P 9F 9F
scshunt 7F 7F 7F 7F 7P 7A 7F 5F 7F
Walker 4F 4F 4F 4F 4F 4F 4F 4P 4P
woggle 4F 4F 4P 4F 4P 4F 4P 4F 4F
AI 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 3
VI *U* *U* *U* *U* *U* 0.75 *U* *U* *U*
F/A 24/0 28/0 24/0 28/0 17/0 12/16 15/0 22/0 24/0
Quorum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Voters 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
[scshunt voted SURE WHY NOT on 7451, which I interpreted as a
synonym for FOR. Eir VVLOP was 5 at the time.]
[woggle endorsed the Herald on 7448, which I recorded in the
Assessor DB as G. as e held it during the voting period,
though scshunt currently holds it. It evaluates to PRESENT
either way.]
Text of adopted proposals:
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7444 (AI=3, Ordinary) by omd
Make implicit votes sensitive to voting limit increases
Amend Rule 2280 (Implicit Votes) by replacing:
e casts a number of ballots equal to eir voting limit on that
decision.
with:
e casts an implicit vote. At resolution time, rules to the
contrary notwithstanding, an implicit vote is treated as if it
were a number of identical votes equal to eir voting limit.
[A better version of Proposal 6998.]
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7445 (AI=3, Ordinary) by omd
relative dimension in sanity
Amend Rule 2338 (Cashing Promises) by removing:
If a promise is possessed by the Tree, any player except the
promise's author CAN transfer it to emself by announcement, if e
cashes the promise in the same message in which e transfers it
to emself.
and by replacing "in eir possession" with "in eir possession, or in
the Tree's possession if e is not its author,".
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7446 (AI=3, Ordinary) by omd
Chamber definition shuffle for consistency
Amend Rule 2389 (Ordinary Chamber) by prepending the paragraph:
Ordinary is a Voting Chamber.
Amend Rule 2373 (Voting Chambers) by removing:
Ordinary is a Voting Chamber.
Retitle Rule 2374 (Democratization) to "Democratic Chamber".
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7447 (AI=3, Ordinary) by omd
Conditional votes should be Power-3
Change the power of Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes) to 3.
Amend Rule 2127 by replacing "and is clearly specified" with "and,
rules to the contrary notwithstanding, is clearly specified".
[I would not be surprised at all if all conditional votes were
ineffective, as conditional ballots do not clearly identify the option
selected in the normal sense; the strong game custom that "clear" for
a vote doesn't mean what it means in every other case (i.e. clear at
the time) may make the power-1 rule effective anyway, but it would be
better to give it proper authority.]
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7448 (AI=1, Ordinary) by omd
ceremonial shilling
Award scshunt the Patent Title "Head of the Agoran Ceremonial Mint".
[See http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2793.]
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7450 (AI=1, Ordinary) by Machiavelli
Igora
Enact a power-1 rule titled "Alliances":
An alliance is a set of persons. Each person is in exactly one
alliance. By default, each person is in an alliance that
contains no other persons. A person CAN join an alliance With
the Support of all its existing members; this causes em to cease
to be a member of eir previous alliance. A person CAN leave eir
alliance by announcement; this causes em to become a member of a
new alliance containing no other persons. If an alliance is
ever empty, it ceases to exist. The Registrar's report includes
all alliances that have more than one member.
Enact a power-1 rule titled "Okinawa":
The Sensei is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping
track of what's going on in Okinawa.
Stones are a fixed asset whose recordkeepor is the Sensei. At
the beginning of each week, every active first-class player is
awarded 3 Stones. If a person ever owns more than 10 airborne
Stones, they lose airborne Stones until they have only 10.
Okinawa is an entity consisting of a nine-by-nine grid of Plots
of Land. Every Plot has a Latitude and a Longitude, each
ranging from -4 (indicating extreme south or west) to 4
(indicating extreme north or east).
Position is a Stone switch, tracked by the Sensei, whose
possible values are "airborne" (default) and every Plot. It is
IMPOSSIBLE for two Stones to occupy the same Plot. The Sensei
SHALL report the Positions of non-airborne Stones by publishing
a map of Okinawa.
Airborne Stones with the same owner are fungible.
A person CAN, by announcement, Play any Stone that e owns on
any unoccupied Plot.
Two Stones are connected if they are orthogonally adjacent and
owned by the same Alliance. A chain is a connected component of
Stones. A chain is in jeopardy if there are no unoccupied Plots
orthogonally adjacent to it. If a person owns a Stone that is
part of a chain that is in jeopardy, then e CANNOT place a Stone
on a Plot, the above notwithstanding. If a chain is in
jeopardy, then any person who owns a Stone in it CAN capture the
chain by announcement. If a chain is not in jeopardy, and then
a Stone is played causing it to come into jeopardy (without
changing the extents of the chain), then the chain is
immediately captured. When a chain is captured, all Stones in
it are destroyed.
If a player has at least seven Stones in Okinawa, and no other
player has at least seven Stones in Okinawa, then that player
satisfies the Victory Condition of Shouri, and all Stones are
destroyed. When this happens, the Sensei SHOULD announce who
the winner was.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7451 (AI=3, Ordinary) by omd
Fix messy statements differently
Repeal Rule 2367 (Messy Statements).
Amend Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) by replacing "inaccurate
or misleading" with "Indeterminate, inaccurate or misleading".
Amend Rule 2202 (Ratification Without Objection) by replacing
"incorrect document" with "document containing incorrect or
Indeterminate information".
Amend Rule 2381 (Win by Clout) by replacing "correct" with "correct
and Determinate".
[Fine, be that way. Although I maintain that Fifty-Nine Thirty-Seven
was a correct fix and should have been adopted, I suppose that
Determinate and Messy Statements are fairly redundant, and there are
only a few locations in the rules that are actually affected by Messy
Statements' redefinition of "accurate" and "correct", so might as well
go to the source.]
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7452 (AI=3, Ordinary) by omd
secret votes redux
Create a new Power-3 Rule titled "Star Chamber":
Star is a Voting Chamber. The voting limit of an eligible voter
on a decision in the Star Chamber is 1. Submitting a proposal
in the Star Chamber has a cost of A Yaks, where A is the value
of the Insanity Fee, a Budget Switch.
The Chamber of a decision CANNOT become Star except by being
initialized to that value when the decision is initiated. If
the set of options of a decision in the Star Chamber changes, or
such a decision is initiated with more than 1000 options or
eligible voters, it automatically becomes Democratic.
Otherwise, within 24 hours after a decision is initiated in the
Star Chamber, the initiator SHALL once, for each eligible voter:
- construct a document (the Codebook) clearly listing a distinct
code for each option, randomly chosen from a reasonably large
universe of possible codes;
- publish its SHA-1 hash, clearly labeled as the hash of eir
Codebook for that decision; then
- privately send it to that voter, clearly labeled as eir
Codebook for that decision.
A player's Codebook for a decision is the first document whose
hash has been published as described. The initiator SHALL NOT
mislabel any document as a Codebook or the hash of a Codebook.
The initiator SHOULD follow these steps immediately after
initiating the decision; if e fails to do so within the time
limit, players SHOULD make the decision Democratic.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, when submitting a ballot
on a decision in the Star Chamber, an eligible voter must select
an option by clearly identifying the code for that option listed
in eir Codebook rather than the option itself.
Within 4 days after the end of such a decision's voting period,
the initiator SHALL publish each of its Codebooks, clearly
labeled as such; when e does so at any time, the decision
becomes Collapsed. If e does not do so in a timely fashion
after the end of the voting period, then all ballots on that
decision become invalid and the decision becomes Collapsed.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the decision can only be
resolved after the decision becomes Collapsed; if the vote
collector is required to resolve the decision, e need only do so
in a timely fashion after this occurs.
The initiator of a decision in the Star Chamber SHALL NOT
disclose any of its codes, or otherwise allow them to become
known to other persons, before the end of the voting period,
except as previously described, and SHOULD take measures to
assign the codes automatically without em personally seeing
them.
Set the value of the Insanity Fee to 100.
[Puts the burden of maintaining the codes on the Promotor rather than
each voter, and, unlike previous proposals, avoids having to trust
anyone to determine the gamestate. I considered having the initiator
contact the vote collector immediately, but may as well minimize the
number of people who have to handle the codes - I will attempt to be
punctual.
Update: Now with more accountability, as a voter can (but need not, if
e trusts the initiator and doesn't feel like computing a SHA-1 hash)
verify the private message at initiation time. There is no way to
stop a player from falsely claiming not to have received eir Codebook
(could add a truthfulness clause, but then players might make such
claims to a-d) and causing democratization, but hopefully nobody will
do that.
