DIS: Re: BUS: proto: moot fix
> > > 3. The Cautious CAN resolve the Moot 4 or more days after > initiating it, and SHALL do so within 14 days of > initiating it. E does so by announcing the selection of > a single option of eir choice from among all valid > options that received the most (unretracted) Support. > In the standard case the Arbitrator is the Cautious, but this is written generally presumably to allow for situations where a person (perhaps the caller, the judge, or some other non-transferrable qualifier) is the Cautious. What then happens if the Cautious deregisters before resolving the Moot? Even in the standard case, the ability to resolve the initiated Moot rests with the person who initiated it. If the office of the Arbitrator changes hands during the Moot, who can resolve it? A simple fix is to allow the Arbitrator to resolve any Moot if they've been going on too long. If you specifically want to have a Cautious who isn't the Arbitrator, and have that power rest completely with the Cautious, it seems to me that a Moot can get stuck indefinitely if e shirks eir obligations. -- -Tiger
DIS: Re: BUS: proto: moot fix
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 11:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > When the Rules state that a person (hereafter the Cautious) > > SHALL conduct or initiate a Moot for selecting from a set of specified > > (valid) options on a particular matter, the Moot is conducted as > > follows: > > > > 1. The Cautious CAN initiate the Moot by announcement, and > > SHALL do so in a timely fashion, specifying the matter to > > be decided and a clear indication of the valid options > > available. > > It's clear what you mean, but the programmer in me see this as an > infinite loop. yah, good catch. will take initiate out of the first part. > Also, this is pretty similar to an Agoran Decision. Why don't we just > use that, rather than copying? I didn't want quorum or quite the same minimum voting period. I also think that it would be fun that to play with flexible resolution time during which votes can change, as a general mechanism. At the same time, the "intent to perform an action" mechanism of dependent actions wasn't a good fit either. Made more sense to start from scratch. I was thinking that moving Elections to Moot instead of Agoran Decisions - might be interesting... =G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7740-42
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I submit the following Proposal, "Agora Wins Forever", AI-3: > -- > Amend Rule 101 (The Game of Agora) by appending the following text > to the first paragraph: "The game may be won, but the game never > ends." > -- > > > I think this is unnecessary, but I'll explain why after the current batch is > resolved. It might be unnecessary right now (the game ending was, just like, my opinion man). This proposal is due to omd's statement of "boring, not again". I wanted to put this text in the front of the Ruleset in clear words, so we don't accidentally go through this the *next* time we re- implement winning. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7740-42
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I submit the following Proposal, "Agora Wins Forever", AI-3: > -- > Amend Rule 101 (The Game of Agora) by appending the following text > to the first paragraph: "The game may be won, but the game never > ends." > -- I think this is unnecessary, but I'll explain why after the current batch is resolved. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Proto-proto: Erratic power
I should note for the general public that anything that stimulates more activity in Agora is a Good Thing. Even if it's a friendly scam. OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Proto-proto: Erratic power
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sun, 26 Apr 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: > > I've got an idea which is actually why I rejoined the game: > > What if erratic rules could override regular rules on > > certain aspects of the game, as long as they were carefully > > sealed so as not to be able to affect regular rules? The > > idea would be to create erratic instruments with erratic power, > > and these things would override regular rules on some things. > > Thoughts? > > Oh, that's excellent. > > One of my long-time "we'll get to this someday" ideas has been > to separate rules into Domains. Within Domain, precedence > works as usual. But power-1 in-domain rules trump power-3 out- > of-domain rules for anything initially defined within a > domain. > > My idea was "serious" in that I was thinking of legislative, > versus judicial versus executive (officer) Domains and economic > structure yadda yadda (which is where I always get bogged down), > but you're right... erratic rules might be a really really cool > place to try something like this. > > -G. > > > > That can get fun, G. Put some "errors" into how to resolve Domain precedences, and all sorts of interesting scams can occur. The easy one is to make certain Domains non-transitive -- Legislative Domain takes precedence over Executive Domain takes precedence over Judicial Domain which takes precedence over Legislative! This might actually work better if non-Domain rules take precedence over Domain rules of lower power, just to keep the fundamental rules intact, especially R101. -- OscarMeyr, Scamster
