BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8596-8601

[Sarah S. via agora-business]

I vote as follows

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:54 AM Aspen via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 8596&   R. Lee  1.0   decimation times 9
>
AGAINST (also I'm quite sure I retracted this, but maybe you can't do it
after pending or maybe i didnt, idk)

> 8597&   R. Lee  1.0   [1]
>
FOR

> 8598&   G.  1.0   [1]
>
FOR

> 8599&   G., Murphy  1.0   The Device (mark 2)
>
FOR

> 8600&   G.  2.0   fix win lockouts
>
FOR

> 8601&   Murphy, Telna   1.0   Adjust late recusal
>
> FOR
--
R. Lee

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8596-8601

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

I vote:

On 8/22/2021 3:53 PM, Aspen via agora-official wrote:
> 8596&   R. Lee  1.0   decimation times 9
AGAINST because contracts.

> 8597&   R. Lee  1.0   [1]
FOR

> 8598&   G.  1.0   [1]
FOR

> 8599&   G., Murphy  1.0   The Device (mark 2)
FOR

> 8600&   G.  2.0   fix win lockouts
FOR

> 8601&   Murphy, Telna   1.0   Adjust late recusal
FOR - the apology clause certainly wasn't meant to catch out recusals of
conscience (i.e. when you don't feel that you can judge in a manner that
agora seems to want).  NoH: +1 Murphy -1 G.

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8596-8601

[Trigon via agora-business]

I vote as follows:

On 22/08/2021 22:53, Aspen via agora-official wrote:

ID  Author(s)   AITitle
---
8596&   R. Lee  1.0   decimation times 9


AGAINST. Unlike some others, I don't have an objection to this happening 
at the stated time, but the proposal itself overlooks some things.



8597&   R. Lee  1.0   [1]


FOR. I don't see how this could hurt.


8598&   G.  1.0   [1]


FOR. Same reason as above.


8599&   G., Murphy  1.0   The Device (mark 2)


FOR


8600&   G.  2.0   fix win lockouts


FOR


8601&   Murphy, Telna   1.0   Adjust late recusal


FOR

--
Trigon

 ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST





I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8596-8601

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

I vote as follows:
> 8596&   R. Lee  1.0   decimation times 9

AGAINST


> 8597&   R. Lee  1.0   [1]

AGAINST


> 8598&   G.  1.0   [1]

AGAINST


> 8599&   G., Murphy  1.0   The Device (mark 2)

FOR


> 8600&   G.  2.0   fix win lockouts

FOR


> 8601&   Murphy, Telna   1.0   Adjust late recusal

ENDORSE Telna

-- 
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8596-8601

[Aspen via agora-business]

 I vote as follows:
> > 8596&   R. Lee  1.0   decimation times 9
AGAINST. This is too soon. Also, when we do this it needs to be more
thought out, with appropriate adjustments to contracts and ongoing
auctions and the like.

> > 8597&   R. Lee  1.0   [1]
FOR

> > 8598&   G.  1.0   [1]
FOR

> > 8599&   G., Murphy  1.0   The Device (mark 2)
FOR. This seems like a lot of fun.

> > 8600&   G.  2.0   fix win lockouts
ENDORSE Jason.

> > 8601&   Murphy, Telna   1.0   Adjust late recusal
FOR

-Aspen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3922 Assigned to Murphy (attn Treasuror)

[Edward Murphy via agora-business]

Telna wrote:


On 2021-08-16 07:43, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:

I recuse myself from this CFJ, but request that the new judge address
how the absence of "clearly" in Rule 2350 (Proposals) affects this
case. (Obviously it would be a good thing to fix legislatively.)


Please note that Rule 2492 "Recusal" expects you to post an apology 
and/or reasonable explanation for your late recusal before you can be 
reassigned.
(I don't intend to follow it strictly in this instance given it's 
clearly an anti-abuse clause which this isn't, but it still seems good 
to be aware of)


I judged on time the first time around. I was still inclined to
interpret the same way, but it was clearly controversial enough that I
figured it would go to moot and then a new judge anyway, so recusal got
it to that point sooner and easier.

I submit the following proposal and pay a pendant to pend it.

Proposal: Adjust late recusal
(co-author = Telna)

Amend Rule 2492 (Recusal) by replacing this text:

  If a judge is recused from a case 4+ days after being assigned to
  it, e SHOULD NOT be assigned as a judge until e has apologised and
  or reasonably explained eir actions.

with this text:

  If a judge is recused from a case that was continuously open and
  assigned to em for at least the past 4 days, e SHOULD NOT be
  assigned as a judge until e has apologised and/or reasonably
  explained eir actions.

[Not that it affects CFJ 3922, but this would prevent the rule from
targeting situations like:
  * Aug 22, player is assigned to a case
  * Aug 23, player judges the case
  * Aug 27, other players move to reconsider the case
  * Aug 28, player recuses emself: only 1 day after e was last assigned,
  but 6 days after e was originally assigned]