Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Internomic2
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/4/18 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com: Tiger wrote: A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora's ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to other rules and orders. If a foreign nomic allows for Agora to take actions in it, the ambassador MAY, with Agoran consent, take any action in it on behalf of Agora. However, no actions shall be taken on behalf of Agora in a nomic that is not Protected, Firendly or Neutral. ...on behalf of Agora, provided that the nomic is Protected, Friendly or Neutral. I retract the proposal and submit the following, with the same name: Adoption Index: 2, please Interest Index: 1 Amend the section in rule 2148 now reading: A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora's ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to other rules and orders. to read: A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora's ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to other rules and orders. If a foreign nomic allows for Agora to take actions in it, the ambassador MAY, with Agoran consent, take any action in it on behalf of Agora, provided that the nomic is Protected, Friendly or Neutral. End proposal -- -Tiger Why not just make it adoption index 1 and then change it to democratic? I would support that.
Re: DIS: while reading the ruleset...
Yally wrote: On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:44 AM, comex com...@gmail.com mailto:com...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu mailto:ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: As per private contract[1], I act on behalf of ais523, to deputize for the Speaker, to assign April prerogatives as follows: Goethe:Default Officeholder Murphy:Justiciar Pavitra: Wielder of Veto OscarMeyr: Wielder of Rubberstamp comex: Wielder of Extra Votes I believe this fails because it is no longer possible for the speaker to assign Prerogatives, because Proposal 6127 removed the phrase by announcement. Rule 2019 previously read: In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the Speaker SHALL assign each Player who bears the patent title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in one set than the other, then e SHALL choose which members of the larger set take part in the assignment. It now reads: In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the Speaker SHALL assign each prerogative to a different active player; first assigning prerogatives to active players bearing the Patent Title Minister without Portfolio (MwoPs); then (if there are more prerogatives than active MwoPs), assigning prerogatives to other active players. It seems like e still assigns them but no longer has to announce that he is assigning them. This goes back to the years-old I say I do, therefore I do debate; actions are defined as being by announcement (or by some other method, e.g. dependent actions, which boils down to by announcement at the end) precisely because that mechanism isn't accepted as being universally implicit. I think I once proposed something like: If the rules say a person CAN perform an action, but do not otherwise specify a mechanism, then e CAN perform it by announcement. but it was voted down. There's a judicial precedent (CFJ 1765) that X SHALL Y by announcement implies X CAN Y by announcement, but the mechanism is only implicit in the second part; it must be specified in the first part.
Re: DIS: while reading the ruleset...
CFJ 1890 is the exact same case as this. On Saturday, April 18, 2009, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Yally wrote: On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 8:44 AM, comex com...@gmail.com mailto:com...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu mailto:ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: As per private contract[1], I act on behalf of ais523, to deputize for the Speaker, to assign April prerogatives as follows: Goethe: Default Officeholder Murphy: Justiciar Pavitra: Wielder of Veto OscarMeyr: Wielder of Rubberstamp comex: Wielder of Extra Votes I believe this fails because it is no longer possible for the speaker to assign Prerogatives, because Proposal 6127 removed the phrase by announcement. Rule 2019 previously read: In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the Speaker SHALL assign each Player who bears the patent title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in one set than the other, then e SHALL choose which members of the larger set take part in the assignment. It now reads: In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the Speaker SHALL assign each prerogative to a different active player; first assigning prerogatives to active players bearing the Patent Title Minister without Portfolio (MwoPs); then (if there are more prerogatives than active MwoPs), assigning prerogatives to other active players. It seems like e still assigns them but no longer has to announce that he is assigning them. This goes back to the years-old I say I do, therefore I do debate; actions are defined as being by announcement (or by some other method, e.g. dependent actions, which boils down to by announcement at the end) precisely because that mechanism isn't accepted as being universally implicit. I think I once proposed something like: If the rules say a person CAN perform an action, but do not otherwise specify a mechanism, then e CAN perform it by announcement. but it was voted down. There's a judicial precedent (CFJ 1765) that X SHALL Y by announcement implies X CAN Y by announcement, but the mechanism is only implicit in the second part; it must be specified in the first part.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Internomic2
Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: 2009/4/18 Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com: On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/4/18 Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com: Tiger wrote: A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora's ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to other rules and orders. If a foreign nomic allows for Agora to take actions in it, the ambassador MAY, with Agoran consent, take any action in it on behalf of Agora. However, no actions shall be taken on behalf of Agora in a nomic that is not Protected, Firendly or Neutral. ...on behalf of Agora, provided that the nomic is Protected, Friendly or Neutral. I retract the proposal and submit the following, with the same name: Adoption Index: 2, please Interest Index: 1 Amend the section in rule 2148 now reading: A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora's ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to other rules and orders. to read: A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora's ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to other rules and orders. If a foreign nomic allows for Agora to take actions in it, the ambassador MAY, with Agoran consent, take any action in it on behalf of Agora, provided that the nomic is Protected, Friendly or Neutral. End proposal Why not just make it adoption index 1 and then change it to democratic? I would support that. Anyone else who would support? I would.
DIS: Re: BUS: Herald Election Fails Quorum
2009/4/18 Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com: This post serves the purpose of resolving the Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Registrar office. The options were coppro, root, and Tiger. The subject line says Herald. -- -Tiger
DIS: Re: BUS: Herald Election Fails Quorum
Aaron Goldfein wrote: This post serves the purpose of resolving the Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Registrar office. The options were coppro, root, and Tiger. The votes are: coppro: No votes. root: coppro Tiger: No votes. Votes: 1 Quorum: 6 (Note: Tiger and Murphy endorsed root and Yally endorsed Tiger, but root did note vote. Wooble cast a conditional vote endorsing the first person to deputize to publish the Herald's report during the election period, or endorsing ais523 if no one has deputized to pusblish such a report. Noone deputized to publish such a report, so Wooble endorsed ais523, but e not vote.) The outcome selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. The Voting Period is hereby doubled. CoE: This is the Herald election, not the Registrar one. (Tiger's post to a-d is not sufficient; this post is self-ratifying if a formal CoE isn't submitted).
DIS: Re: BUS: Herald Election Fails Quorum
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 12:46 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote: This post serves the purpose of resolving the Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Registrar office. (snip) Wooble cast a conditional vote endorsing the first person to deputize to publish the Herald's report during the election period, or endorsing ais523 if no one has deputized to pusblish such a report. I'm pretty sure e voted like that in the Herald election, not the Registrar election. As it is, I'm not voting in elections atm partly because I'm really confused as to what the situation is with officers atm. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Herald Election Fails Quorum
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 12:46 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote: This post serves the purpose of resolving the Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Registrar office. (snip) Wooble cast a conditional vote endorsing the first person to deputize to publish the Herald's report during the election period, or endorsing ais523 if no one has deputized to pusblish such a report. I'm pretty sure e voted like that in the Herald election, not the Registrar election. As it is, I'm not voting in elections atm partly because I'm really confused as to what the situation is with officers atm. -- ais523 You're right, this was an error that I have already corrected.
Re: DIS: PBA status?
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: I haven't seen a PBA report in over 2 months. Am I missing something? No. My proposal in perlnomic to post a report needs 1 more vote. http://nomic.info/perlnomic/current-proposals/data.Wooble.pba_rep_041609 is the report it will send if it passes
DIS: Re: BUS: Ambassador Violating Rule 2135
On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 20:23 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote: The list of players is from January 2008. No it isn't, I just didn't notice the section heading has a date in. That list's from early March 2009. -- ais523 Ambassador
DIS: Re: BUS: Ambassador Violating Rule 2135
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: The list of players is from January 2008. It's mislabeled; coppro and Tiger definitely were not players in January 2008.
