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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8342j Gaelan, [1] 2.0 Calls with Memoranda 8343j twg 1.7 Judicial Jocularity Act 8344* Alexis 3.0 Unsubstantive interpretation 8345j Jason 2.0 Self-punishment 8346* Jason, ais523 3.0 De-secure Black Ribbons v2 8347* Jason 3.0 R2141 power increase v2 8348* Gaelan 3.1 Summaries Matter 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.] ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8348 Title: Summaries Matter Adoption index: 3.1 Author: Gaelan Co-authors: Amend rule 1551 (“Ratification") by replacing the paragraph: { An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified; however, if such a document can be divided into a summary section and a main section, where the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize information in the main section, and the main section is internally consistent, ratification of the document proceeds as if it contained only the main section. } with: { An internally inconsistent document CANNOT be ratified. } [Rationale: Summaries, by their very nature, exist to save us the trouble reading the rest of the document. If we have to read the whole document to make sure it won’t accidentally ratify the wrong thing, that defeats the purpose of having a summary in the first place.] //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////