BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8308-8321
> 8308& Falsifian3.0 Imposing order on the order PRESENT > 8309* Alexis 3.0 A Degree of Inefficiency AGAINST > 8310& Jason, Alexis3.0 Deputisation timeliness AGAINST > 8311e twg, omd 1.0 Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy FOR > 8312f Alexis 1.0 On Possibility FOR > 8313* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person PRESENT > 8314e Aris 1.0 Finite Gifting FOR > 8315* Alexis 3.0 Clearer Resolutions PRESENT > 8316* Alexis 3.0 Zombie voting package AGAINST > 8317e Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade FOR > 8318f Aris 1.0 Notorial Economy FOR > 8319l Aris 2.0 Sergeant-at-Arms FOR > 8320l Aris 2.0 Promotorial Assignment FOR > 8321l Aris 2.0 Untying Quorum FOR -- Tcbapo
Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 19:26, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business
wrote:
>
> Jason wrote:
> > Sorry, do people have other support/objections for these? I would prefer
> > not to just let them die.
>
> I object to the capitalisation one for the same reason as Alexis.
>
> I object to the lists one because the example given is very confusing.
> It's not an inline list because it's separated from the surrounding
> prose, and it's not a block list because the elements aren't separated
> by line breaks. And why are those spacing restrictions needed anyway
> when R2429 lets you, as Rulekeepor, change spacing freely?
>
> I support the pronouns one, although I think it could do with amending
> to specify the other declensions ("eir", "eirs", "emself") too.
>
> -twg
I CFJ {Jason has, in the last two weeks, made a single intent to enact
multiple Editorial Guidelines and twg is both a Supporter and Objector
to it.}
Arguments:
As discussed, this is likely a single intent/action rather than
multiple. However, beyond that, by trying to support and/or object to
individual components, has twg thereby supported and objected to it?
Or has this failed and e is neither?
-Alexis
Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
I support each and every one.
-Aris
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:43 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
>
> I've finally gotten around to drafting these, so I intend, with Agoran
> consent, to enact the following Editorial Guidelines:
>
> [Informal title: "Capitalization"]
>
> {
>
> Capitalization of terms of art should follow, as closely as possible,
> existing usages of the term. In the event of inconsistent usage, or when
> creating new terms of art, prefer using lowercase letters, except when
> the term of art contains a proper noun.
>
> Example: prefer "blots" to "Blots".
>
> Specifically, all dependent action methods besides "Agoran consent" are
> entirely lowercase.
>
> }
>
>
> [Informal title: "Lists"]
>
> {
>
> There are two types of list numbering: ordered and unordered. Ordered
> lists are marked with a marker that monotonically increases with each
> item. Unordered lists are marked with the same marker for each element.
>
> Example: "*" is the marker in:
>
> * Alice
> * Bob
>
>
> There are two types of list formatting: inline and block. Inline lists
> are contained with in the prose, and are not separated from the
> preceding prose by line breaks. Block lists have newlines before and
> after each element. Inline lists should not exceed more than 2 to 3
> elements; if they do, consider making the list a block list.
>
> Inline ordered lists should have the marker "X)", and block ordered
> lists should have the marker "X.", where X is either the number of the
> list item or a letter. Block unordered lists should have the marker "*".
>
> When there are multiple ordered block lists in a single rule, prefer to
> give each of them a different numbering style. For example, one could
> use "1.", "2.", "3." while another uses "A.", "B.", "C.".
>
> }
>
> [I wanted to put something about how each list item should end, but I'm
> not quite sure how to phrase it, and the current rules diverge a good
> bit on the matter.]
>
>
> [Informal title: "Pronouns"]
>
> {
>
> The singular non-gendered pronoun is "e" in the nominative, and "em" in
> the accusative. Do not use "they" as a singular pronoun. Do not use
> "he/him/his" or "she/her/her" as a singular pronoun when referring to a
> person of unknown gender.
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Let's deal with the temporary rules.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:28, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion
wrote:
> Falsifian wrote:
> > Sigh. I repeal Blink test v1.1 and submit:
> >
> > Title: Blink test v1.2
> > AI: 1
> > Chamber: Legislation
> > Co-authors: Jason
> > Text: {
> >
> > Amend Rule 2601 to read in full:
> >
> > If this is the only paragraph in this rule, and it has been at
> > least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player
> > CAN Close the Eye by announcement. When that happens, this rule
> > repeals itself.
> >
> > }
>
> NttPF.
>
> -twg
Sigh. I repeal Blink test v1.1 and submit:
Title: Blink test v1.2
AI: 1
Chamber: Legislation
Co-authors: Jason
Text: {
Amend Rule 2601 to read in full:
If this is the only paragraph in this rule, and it has been at
least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player
CAN Close the Eye by announcement. When that happens, this rule
repeals itself.
}
- Falsifian
Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 19:05, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > They're separate attempts, so you could object to only the > capitalization one. "I intend, with Agoran consent, to enact the following Editorial Guidelines:" does not seem like multiple separate intents.
Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
Jason wrote:
> Sorry, do people have other support/objections for these? I would prefer
> not to just let them die.
I object to the capitalisation one for the same reason as Alexis.
I object to the lists one because the example given is very confusing.
It's not an inline list because it's separated from the surrounding
prose, and it's not a block list because the elements aren't separated
by line breaks. And why are those spacing restrictions needed anyway
when R2429 lets you, as Rulekeepor, change spacing freely?
I support the pronouns one, although I think it could do with amending
to specify the other declensions ("eir", "eirs", "emself") too.
-twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3793 judged FALSE (zombies work but not for Gaelan)
Somewhat belatedly, I recuse myself from CFJ 3793. Sorry. I thought I understood it at first, but the new arguments are just making my head spin and I can't figure out what the right answer should be. It does, however, seem to be fairly widely accepted that the auction rules are broken in _some_ way, even if we can't agree on exactly how, and so I suggest that perhaps our collective efforts would be better placed crafting a proposal to fix them, especially when the potential ramifications of this auction have already been self-ratified away. The one piece of vaguely helpful commentary I do have, in relation to these arguments from Alexis... > This very clearly excludes situations where the auctioneer cannot transfer > the lot at will from the scope of the automatic transfer. If an auction is > implicitly a mechanism, then we have effectively the following: > > 1. If the auctioneer can transfer it at will, it happens automatically. > 2. If the auctioneer can transfer it, but not at all, it does not happen > automatically. > 3. If the auctioneer cannot transfer it at all, it happens... automatically. > > This is rather absurd, and definitely not explicitly specified. > > See also the entirety of rule 2552, which allowed an auction to be > terminated if the lot cannot be transferred away. It clearly envisions a > world where something is up for auction but cannot be transferred, which > could not be the case if R2545 provides a fallback mechanism. ...is that whether or not an interpretation is "absurd" is specifically discounted from consideration when determining its validity, according to Rule 217. I don't think the rules' reference to _what would happen_ in a situation (here, the situation where it is IMPOSSIBLE to transfer a lot) is germane when considering whether or not that situation could ever actually arise. If zombie transferral is generally IMPOSSIBLE, then it is because of Alexis' other argument (that Rule 2545's opening paragraph is not sufficiently explicit to amount to the equivalent of a CAN directive). But I fear I lack the semiotic nous to properly evaluate it. -twg
Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On 2/6/20 6:58 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > After reading through them again, I object. I have no issues with the > latter two, but I am personally opposed to the idea that terms of art > should not be capitalized; it can enhance clarity to do so. > > -Alexis They're separate attempts, so you could object to only the capitalization one. -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 18:43, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > I've finally gotten around to drafting these, so I intend, with Agoran > consent, to enact the following Editorial Guidelines: After reading through them again, I object. I have no issues with the latter two, but I am personally opposed to the idea that terms of art should not be capitalized; it can enhance clarity to do so. -Alexis
Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On 1/27/20 6:43 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I've finally gotten around to drafting these, so I intend, with Agoran > consent, to enact the following Editorial Guidelines: Sorry, do people have other support/objections for these? I would prefer not to just let them die. -- Jason Cobb
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8308-8321
I vote as follows, and act on behalf of o to vote as follows: > 8316* Alexis 3.0 Zombie voting package AGAINST > 8317e Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade AGAINST
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8308-8321
> 8313* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person
> AGAINST --- See my comment in the thread where it was proposed. I like
> the idea, though.
I change my vote on Proposal 8313 to {endorse Alexis}.
- Falsifian
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8308-8321
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 21:29, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > > 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)AITitle > --- > 8308& Falsifian3.0 Imposing order on the order AGAINST per omd > 8309* Alexis 3.0 A Degree of Inefficiency AGAINST > 8310& Jason, Alexis3.0 Deputisation timeliness AGAINST > 8311e twg, omd 1.0 Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy ENDORSE omd > 8312f Alexis 1.0 On Possibility ENDORSE Falsifian > 8313* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person FOR > 8314e Aris 1.0 Finite Gifting FOR > 8315* Alexis 3.0 Clearer Resolutions FOR > 8316* Alexis 3.0 Zombie voting package FOR > 8317e Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade FOR > 8318f Aris 1.0 Notorial Economy AGAINST as it contradicts the next proposal. > 8319l Aris 2.0 Sergeant-at-Arms FOR > 8320l Aris 2.0 Promotorial Assignment FOR > 8321l Aris 2.0 Untying Quorum AGAINST -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Let's deal with the temporary rules.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:43, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2/6/20 1:41 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote:
> > least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player
> > CAN repeal this rule by announcement.
>
>
> Per Rule 105, only Instruments can cause rule changes, and persons are
> not Instruments.
Oops, I thought of that then promptly forgot.
I repeal my proposal "Blink test" and submit a proposal as follows.
Title: Blink test v1.1
AI: 1
Chamber: Legislation
Text: {
Amend Rule 2601 to read in full:
If this is the only sentence in this rule, and it has been at
least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player
CAN Close the Eye by announcement. When that happens, this rule
repeals itself.
}
BUS: [Proposal] the eternal spirit
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 00:05, James Cook wrote:
> proto:
>
> Title: The Eternal Sprit
> AI: 3
> Co-authors: twg
> Text: {
> Amend Rule 869 by inserting the sentence "Any entity that was ever a
> person under that definition remains a person forever." after the
> first sentence.
> }
>
> Alternative: simply replace "is a person" with "is eternally a
> person", but I'm not sure whether that covers entities that stopped
> being persons before the rule was amended.
>
> - Falsifian
I submit a proposal as follows. (Decided to go with a one-added-word
version despite my own concern, because it looks nicer.)
Title: The Eternal Sprit
AI: 3
Co-authors: twg
Text: {
Amend Rule 869 by replacing the text "is a person" with "is forever a
person".
}
- Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] February zombie auction
On 2/6/20 1:24 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote: > I bid 11 Coins in this auction. > > - Falsifian I bid 12 coins. -- Jason Cobb
BUS: [Proposal] Let's deal with the temporary rules.
I submit two proposals, as follows:
Title: Attempted cleanup
AI: 3
Chamber: Legislation
Text: {
Repeal Rule 2604 ("Nothing to see here, Rule 1030,") and Rule 2600 ("Boo!!").
}
Title: Blink test
AI: 1
Chamber: Legislation
Text: {
Amend Rule 2601 to read in full:
If this is the only sentence in this rule, and it has been at
least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player
CAN repeal this rule by announcement.
}
- Falsifian
BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] February zombie auction
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:23, James Cook via agora-official wrote: > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid first): > > 1. Trigon > 2. Nch > 3. Cuddle Beam > 4. Walker > 5. ATMunn > > Agora is the Auctioneer, and the Registrar is the Announcer. The > currency is Coins with a minimum bid of 1. I bid 11 Coins in this auction. - Falsifian
BUS: Re: [Attn: ATMunn] Late zombie auction candidate
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 00:41, James Cook wrote: > I intend, with notice, to flip ATMunn's instance of the master switch to > Agora. > > (I believe e last sent a public message on December 8.) > > - Falsifian I do so.
BUS: [DoV] [Proposal] Closing the door behind me
I pay a fee of 1000 Coins to win the game.
I submit a proposal as follows:
Title: Inflation Vote
AI: 2
Chamber: Economy
Text: {
[Comments:
Are we just going to let a steady stream of sufficiently dedicated
players claim their standard victories? I say we raise the bar a
little.
There's been some talk of a larger re-working of the economy. In the
meantime, this proposal calls for players to vote on a new number to
replace the 1,000 coin victory fee. The median vote wins, favouring the
higher vote if there are two middle votes.
]
For the purpose of this proposal:
* An Inflation Ballot is a body of text published during the voting
period of this proposal that clearly, directly and without
obfuscation specifies a single non-negative integer and that it is an
Inflation Ballot.
* Each player's Inflation Vote is the integer specified in the last
Inflation Ballot they published, or "none" if they never published
one.
* P is the number of players with Inflation Votes other than "none".
* Median is the (unique) integer such that that at least P/2 Inflation
Votes are integers greater than or equal to Median, and at least
(P/2+0.5) Inflation votes are integers less than or equal to Median.
Amend Rule 2483 (Economics) by replacing "1,000" with Median, written
in decimal with commas separating groups of three digits, as in
"12,345,678".
}
- Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8308-8321
On 2/3/20 2:09 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I cause Bernie to vote to ENDORSE me in every Agoran decision currently > in its voting period. Whoops, Bernie is not my zombie. I cause Rance to vote to ENDORSE me in every Agoran decision currently in its voting period. -- Jason Cobb
