DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Error in state of PM election
You're missing this from the same rule: "An election is contested if it has two or more candidates at the end of the nomination period, and uncontested otherwise. For a contested election, nominations close at the end of the poll's voting period. For an uncontested election, nominations close at the end of the nomination period." -Aris On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 6:53 AM Edward Murphy wrote: > > Aris wrote: > > > I formally protest this confusion. I am unambiguously a candidate, and > > I respectfully request that competent authority explicitly and clearly > > recognize my candidacy and that people vote between me and the other > > candidates on our respective merits, rather than because of the mess > > created by the ADoP's office. If people keep endorsing G. solely > > because of how confusing the situation appears to be, then of course > > e'll win. I'd furthermore like to remind everyone of the active role > > I've taken in resolving our current crisis of inactivity [1] and > > suggest that they take that into account in their voting. To be > > perfectly clear, people are free to vote however they'd like. I'd > > simply prefer that if G. wins, instead of me, it is because people > > would prefer em as Prime Minister, not because of confusion over the > > valid candidates. > > Aris announced eir candidacy here: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-April/040240.html > > The original point of confusion was the incorrect belief that there > were two separate elections for Prime Minister within the past couple > of months. The first one didn't end uncontested because it was > contested by Corona, and didn't end for lack of votes because voting > was never opened and doesn't automatically open after the nomination > period. > > The only other potential point of confusion that I know of is this > text from Rule 1006 (Election Procedure): > >When an election is initiated, it enters the nomination period, >which lasts for 4 days. After an election is initiated and until >nominations close, any player CAN become a candidate by >announcement. (etc.) > > and later: > >1) If the election is contested, initiate an Agoran decision to >select the winner of the election (the poll). For this decision, >the Vote Collector is the ADoP, the valid options are the >candidates for that election (including those who become >candidates after its initiation), (etc.) > > Precedent seems to be to avoid equating "nominations close" with > "nomination period ends", so that that last parenthetical can do > its job. Still, I've been meaning to propose a fix and I don't think > I've gotten around to actually doing so; see upcoming message. > >
Re: DIS: the end never games
3 is currently the default, so it's only an increase of 2 actually. -Aris On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:45 AM ATMunn wrote: > I really like this idea, actually. My only initial concern is that the > Power Stone may be too powerful. > > On 5/20/2019 10:48 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Proto: Stones > > > > [Reason: we need more things to auction. And vaguely topical.] > > > > New Rules to be created: > > > > Stones > > > >A Stone is a unique indestructable liquid asset defined by the > >Rules. To define a stone, the definition must include: > >(i) The unique Name of the stone; > >(ii) The Frequency of the stone's use, which must be one of > > daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or NA. > >(iii) The Escape Risk of the stone, which must be a percentage > > between 10% and 100% inclusive; > >(iii) The Effects of wielding the stone. > > > >Ownership of stones is entirely restricted to Agora and players. > >The Stonekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of stones. > > > > > > Wielding Stones > > > >Unless otherwise made IMPOSSIBLE by the rules, the owner of a > >stone CAN wield it by announcement, clearly specifying any > >values needed to interpret the stone's effects. > > > >If the frequency of a stone is not NA, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to > >activate that stone if it has been previously wielded in the > >same Agoran time interval as indicated by its frequency (e.g. if > >its frequency is daily, if it has been wielded in the same Agoran > >day). > > > >When a stone is wielded, the power of the stone is set to the > >power of the rule defining that stone, and the stone applies its > >defined effects as specified; the power of the stone is > immediately > >thereafter set to 0. > > > > > > Distributing Stones > > > >The Stonekeepor CAN initiate an auction for any set of stones > >belonging to Agora for which an auction is not ongoing, with each > >individual stone being an auction lot. The Stonekeepor is the > >Announcer, the auctioneer is Agora, and the auction currency is > >Coins. > > > >The Stonekeepor SHALL so initiate an auction for a set of stones > >consisting of at least one third the stones eligible for auction > >in a timely fashion after publishing a Collection Notice. > > > > > > Collecting Stones > > > >Once per month, the Stonekeepor CAN publish a Collection Notice. > >A collection notice includes, for every stone not belonging to > >Agora, a random choice of whether that stone escapes; it escapes > >with a probability equal to its escape risk. When a stone > >escapes, it is transferred to Agora. The Stonekeepor SHALL > >publish such a notice in the first Eastman week of each month. > > > > > > The Gauntlet > > > >When a player makes a correct announcement that a single specified > >player, owns 5 or more stones, the specified player wins the game. > >Upon such a win, all existing stones are transferred to Agora. > > > > > > The Stones > > > >The following stones are defined, one per paragraph, with the > >following format: Stone Name (Frequency, Escape Risk): Effects. > > > >- Power Stone (weekly, 40%): The wielder specifies an unresolved > > Agoran Decision and a player; that player's voting strength on > > that decision is increased by 5. > > > >- Wealth Stone (weekly, 25%): The specified player earns 7 coins. > > > >- Time Stone (weekly, 50%): Specify an act of wielding a different > > stone that was performed in the last 7 days; the effects of that > > previous wielding are undone. This is not retroactive. > > > >- Reality Stone (monthly, 40%): Specify a valid value for an > > instance of any unsecured switch; that switch is flipped to that > > value. > > > >- Space Stone (monthly, 25%): Create a Spaceship in the possession > > of the specified player. > > > >- Mind Stone (monthly, 50%): Act on behalf of any specified player > > to support or object to a specified dependent action, or > > withdraw support or objection from a specified dependent action. > > > >- Soul Stone (weekly, 50%): The Soul Stone is transferred to the > > owner of a different specified stone, and that stone is > > simultaneously transferred to the wielder. > > > > [Other stone ideas very welcome!] > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
On 5/20/2019 1:12 PM, James Cook wrote: I imagine there must be precedent where old rules defining entities have been re-enacted, and the players assumed no such entities existed immediately after the re-enactment. Maybe that's enough to favour the interpretation that no sectors exist when the games are revived. But I'd be happier if it were more clear. Are there other reasons to favour that interpretation? I can think of a few precedents that, after a definition X was repealed, a CFJ that says "X exists" was false. Since that was a precedent, I can't think of anyone who brought up the argument "now that the rule has been re-enacted, those things that didn't exist just before the re- enactment go back to how they were the moment before they were previously destroyed".
Re: DIS: Re: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
On 5/20/2019 1:16 PM, James Cook wrote: On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 12:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: I vote AGAINST 8177. I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177. As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space early on, as have others. Willing to sit out of a subgame this long, but not through a whole revival. Separate question: why does this make 8177 bad? The proposal allows the game to be continued fairly easily (I feel like the main obstacle remains finding an Astronomor). If the state is reset, that's better for players who didn't get to play the first time around. I feel like I'm missing something. I was against this if it was *not* assumed to be reset. (players who register while space is on hiatus would not get new spaceships created when it re-activates). If we go the ratification route (which is fine), we'd have to re-create all the spaceships on the other side (because that's not a matter of default switches, those are assets that would need to be re-made).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
> On May 20, 2019, at 4:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at the
> time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
>
> { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules” have
> the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
>
> Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the Spaaace Rules
> has its default value.
>
> There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the Clork
> pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to the Spaaace
> Rules. }
>
> The document is false; the reason for ratifying it is that the subgames are
> defunct.
Actually, I have a better way to accomplish this. Any reason why the following
wouldn’t work if I published it on BUS?
/
The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is because the games
are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what the game state of
either of them is.
I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no entities in
existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than those created
directly by the Rules. All switches have their default value for which the
Astronomor is recordkeepor.}
I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities in
existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those directly
created by the Rules. All switches have their default value for which the Clork
is recordkeepor.}
I resign Clork and I resign Astronomor.
DIS: Re: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 12:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I vote AGAINST 8177. > I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177. > > As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space early on, as have > others. Willing to sit out of a subgame this long, but not through > a whole revival. Separate question: why does this make 8177 bad? The proposal allows the game to be continued fairly easily (I feel like the main obstacle remains finding an Astronomor). If the state is reset, that's better for players who didn't get to play the first time around. I feel like I'm missing something.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
> R217 covers this via the precedent initially set in CFJ 1500, asserts > that words go back to having their common language meaning when not > defined by the rules. Amusingly, CFJ 1500 covered the exact word > "politician" (and if we had to respect that ancient and entirely > different meaning, then the game would be really confused). Thanks, I think I agree now that while the rules are suspended, sectors and politicians don't exist in the sense defined by the Spaaace and Politics rules. I'm still a bit uncertain about what happens when the rules are revived. We seem to believe that immediately after R2588 was first enacted, no sectors existed. I can think of a few reasons for that: * it's the only straightforward assumption, * the text about creating or destroying sectors can be taken to imply that a sector can only exist after it's created * R217 defers to the game custom that at the moment when a type of entity is first defined, none of those entities exist Are there others? If D. Margaux's new rule said "To give the officers a break, the Spaaace and Politics rules are temporarily suspended during the first Eastman week of every month," then I think a competing interpretation would appear: that every time the Spaaace rules come back into force, all the facts about sectors existing and not existing that were true immediately before the suspension become true again, just like the facts directly asserted by those rules would (e.g. "The Astronomor is an office"). I'm not sure it's a better interpretation, but it's enough to make me uncertain. I imagine there must be precedent where old rules defining entities have been re-enacted, and the players assumed no such entities existed immediately after the re-enactment. Maybe that's enough to favour the interpretation that no sectors exist when the games are revived. But I'd be happier if it were more clear. Are there other reasons to favour that interpretation? > Ask yourself: if, while these rules were "deactivated", another rule > came along and defined one of those terms differently, what would > happen? If we respected the old definition as per R1586, then those rules > wouldn't be "without effect". If we respected a new definition, then what > happens when the rules are re-activated? I agree that would interact badly with my "start from where we left off" interpretation. But, assuming that doesn't happen, does it matter that it could have? There are probably lots of other strange things that could have happened in the meantime that would cause the rules to behave strangely upon being reinstated, like defining "office" to mean "integer". (Though I wish I could come up with an example more similar to this situation.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
On 5/20/2019 10:31 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On 5/20/2019 8:59 AM, James Cook wrote:>> I can't see anything other than the third>> paragraph of R1586 implying that a generic entity is destroyed when>> its defining rule goes away, and I don't think it applies in this case>> since this isn't an amendment. Also, I think this particular bit isn't correct - the ruleset as a whole is being amended such that the rule containing the definition has "no force or effect", therefore it loses the "effect" of defining a term. If we respected the definition, it would be having an effect on the game contrary to the assertion that it does not.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
On 5/20/2019 8:59 AM, James Cook wrote: [* the rules must define a switch for it to exist, and a rule with no force or effect includes no force or effect for its definitions - note R1586 is only power-2 so this "no force or effect" clause would overrule R1586. So if the switch doesn't exist while the rule is suspended, it is recreated when the suspension ends, which means in its default state]. What about sectors, politicians, and other entities that aren't switches or assets? I can't see anything other than the third paragraph of R1586 implying that a generic entity is destroyed when its defining rule goes away, and I don't think it applies in this case since this isn't an amendment. R217 covers this via the precedent initially set in CFJ 1500, asserts that words go back to having their common language meaning when not defined by the rules. Amusingly, CFJ 1500 covered the exact word "politician" (and if we had to respect that ancient and entirely different meaning, then the game would be really confused). Ask yourself: if, while these rules were "deactivated", another rule came along and defined one of those terms differently, what would happen? If we respected the old definition as per R1586, then those rules wouldn't be "without effect". If we respected a new definition, then what happens when the rules are re-activated? https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1500
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
> [* the rules must define a switch for it to exist, and a rule with no > force or effect includes no force or effect for its definitions - note > R1586 is only power-2 so this "no force or effect" clause would overrule > R1586. So if the switch doesn't exist while the rule is suspended, it is > recreated when the suspension ends, which means in its default state]. What about sectors, politicians, and other entities that aren't switches or assets? I can't see anything other than the third paragraph of R1586 implying that a generic entity is destroyed when its defining rule goes away, and I don't think it applies in this case since this isn't an amendment.
Re: DIS: the end never games
I really like this idea, actually. My only initial concern is that the Power Stone may be too powerful. On 5/20/2019 10:48 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Proto: Stones [Reason: we need more things to auction. And vaguely topical.] New Rules to be created: Stones A Stone is a unique indestructable liquid asset defined by the Rules. To define a stone, the definition must include: (i) The unique Name of the stone; (ii) The Frequency of the stone's use, which must be one of daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or NA. (iii) The Escape Risk of the stone, which must be a percentage between 10% and 100% inclusive; (iii) The Effects of wielding the stone. Ownership of stones is entirely restricted to Agora and players. The Stonekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of stones. Wielding Stones Unless otherwise made IMPOSSIBLE by the rules, the owner of a stone CAN wield it by announcement, clearly specifying any values needed to interpret the stone's effects. If the frequency of a stone is not NA, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to activate that stone if it has been previously wielded in the same Agoran time interval as indicated by its frequency (e.g. if its frequency is daily, if it has been wielded in the same Agoran day). When a stone is wielded, the power of the stone is set to the power of the rule defining that stone, and the stone applies its defined effects as specified; the power of the stone is immediately thereafter set to 0. Distributing Stones The Stonekeepor CAN initiate an auction for any set of stones belonging to Agora for which an auction is not ongoing, with each individual stone being an auction lot. The Stonekeepor is the Announcer, the auctioneer is Agora, and the auction currency is Coins. The Stonekeepor SHALL so initiate an auction for a set of stones consisting of at least one third the stones eligible for auction in a timely fashion after publishing a Collection Notice. Collecting Stones Once per month, the Stonekeepor CAN publish a Collection Notice. A collection notice includes, for every stone not belonging to Agora, a random choice of whether that stone escapes; it escapes with a probability equal to its escape risk. When a stone escapes, it is transferred to Agora. The Stonekeepor SHALL publish such a notice in the first Eastman week of each month. The Gauntlet When a player makes a correct announcement that a single specified player, owns 5 or more stones, the specified player wins the game. Upon such a win, all existing stones are transferred to Agora. The Stones The following stones are defined, one per paragraph, with the following format: Stone Name (Frequency, Escape Risk): Effects. - Power Stone (weekly, 40%): The wielder specifies an unresolved Agoran Decision and a player; that player's voting strength on that decision is increased by 5. - Wealth Stone (weekly, 25%): The specified player earns 7 coins. - Time Stone (weekly, 50%): Specify an act of wielding a different stone that was performed in the last 7 days; the effects of that previous wielding are undone. This is not retroactive. - Reality Stone (monthly, 40%): Specify a valid value for an instance of any unsecured switch; that switch is flipped to that value. - Space Stone (monthly, 25%): Create a Spaceship in the possession of the specified player. - Mind Stone (monthly, 50%): Act on behalf of any specified player to support or object to a specified dependent action, or withdraw support or objection from a specified dependent action. - Soul Stone (weekly, 50%): The Soul Stone is transferred to the owner of a different specified stone, and that stone is simultaneously transferred to the wielder. [Other stone ideas very welcome!]
DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie Auction
> I apologize if this message comes through as a duplicate. I sent it earlier > then received a message that my mailing list membership had been disabled. I received the message the first time. If you're ever unsure, you can check the mailing list archives, linked to from https://agoranomic.org/.
DIS: the end never games
Proto: Stones [Reason: we need more things to auction. And vaguely topical.] New Rules to be created: Stones A Stone is a unique indestructable liquid asset defined by the Rules. To define a stone, the definition must include: (i) The unique Name of the stone; (ii) The Frequency of the stone's use, which must be one of daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or NA. (iii) The Escape Risk of the stone, which must be a percentage between 10% and 100% inclusive; (iii) The Effects of wielding the stone. Ownership of stones is entirely restricted to Agora and players. The Stonekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of stones. Wielding Stones Unless otherwise made IMPOSSIBLE by the rules, the owner of a stone CAN wield it by announcement, clearly specifying any values needed to interpret the stone's effects. If the frequency of a stone is not NA, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to activate that stone if it has been previously wielded in the same Agoran time interval as indicated by its frequency (e.g. if its frequency is daily, if it has been wielded in the same Agoran day). When a stone is wielded, the power of the stone is set to the power of the rule defining that stone, and the stone applies its defined effects as specified; the power of the stone is immediately thereafter set to 0. Distributing Stones The Stonekeepor CAN initiate an auction for any set of stones belonging to Agora for which an auction is not ongoing, with each individual stone being an auction lot. The Stonekeepor is the Announcer, the auctioneer is Agora, and the auction currency is Coins. The Stonekeepor SHALL so initiate an auction for a set of stones consisting of at least one third the stones eligible for auction in a timely fashion after publishing a Collection Notice. Collecting Stones Once per month, the Stonekeepor CAN publish a Collection Notice. A collection notice includes, for every stone not belonging to Agora, a random choice of whether that stone escapes; it escapes with a probability equal to its escape risk. When a stone escapes, it is transferred to Agora. The Stonekeepor SHALL publish such a notice in the first Eastman week of each month. The Gauntlet When a player makes a correct announcement that a single specified player, owns 5 or more stones, the specified player wins the game. Upon such a win, all existing stones are transferred to Agora. The Stones The following stones are defined, one per paragraph, with the following format: Stone Name (Frequency, Escape Risk): Effects. - Power Stone (weekly, 40%): The wielder specifies an unresolved Agoran Decision and a player; that player's voting strength on that decision is increased by 5. - Wealth Stone (weekly, 25%): The specified player earns 7 coins. - Time Stone (weekly, 50%): Specify an act of wielding a different stone that was performed in the last 7 days; the effects of that previous wielding are undone. This is not retroactive. - Reality Stone (monthly, 40%): Specify a valid value for an instance of any unsecured switch; that switch is flipped to that value. - Space Stone (monthly, 25%): Create a Spaceship in the possession of the specified player. - Mind Stone (monthly, 50%): Act on behalf of any specified player to support or object to a specified dependent action, or withdraw support or objection from a specified dependent action. - Soul Stone (weekly, 50%): The Soul Stone is transferred to the owner of a different specified stone, and that stone is simultaneously transferred to the wielder. [Other stone ideas very welcome!]
DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [dicelog] Selection of Comptrollor
D. Margaux wrote: I also CoE that omd is not the comptrollor because G. was Tailor, and wasn’t in the dice roll. Huh. I have no idea how I missed that one. I don't /think/ I did it ahead of updating the database for G.'s deputisation. I had an argument for "retroactively give twg's slot to G.", but that seems pretty shaky. I'll redo the roll later when I have time.
DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [dicelog] Selection of Comptrollor
Did I have an equal chance, as Tailor? On 5/20/2019 6:41 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: D. Margaux wrote: Another CoE for most recent ADOP report—by ratification, twg wasn’t an officer at the time of this dice roll. So omd wasn’t chosen from among all officers; he was chosen from among all officers + twg. Denied. All officers still had an equal chance of being chosen. If twg emself had been chosen, then such a CoE would be valid.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
Actually, there's an interesting question - if the rules have "no force or effect" do they continue to define the entities, switches, etc.? I don't think they do[*], which would mean that when they came back into force the switches would be "newly created" and in default. [* the rules must define a switch for it to exist, and a rule with no force or effect includes no force or effect for its definitions - note R1586 is only power-2 so this "no force or effect" clause would overrule R1586. So if the switch doesn't exist while the rule is suspended, it is recreated when the suspension ends, which means in its default state]. On 5/20/2019 5:18 AM, D. Margaux wrote: What if, by ratification, we reset all Spaaace and Politics switches to their default values before suspending? On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:08 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: I vote AGAINST 8177. I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177. As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space early on, as have others. Willing to sit out of a subgame this long, but not through a whole revival. On 5/19/2019 6:49 PM, Aris Merchant 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 3, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). IDAuthor(s) AITitle --- 8177 Aris, [1] 3.0 Side-Game Suspension Act (v3) The proposal pool is currently empty. [1] D Margaux, G. The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. // ID: 8177 Title: Side-Game Suspension Act (v3) Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: D Margaux, G. Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Side-Game Suspension", with the following text: 1. The Spaaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591, 2592, 2593 and 2594. 2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536, 2537, 2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543. 3. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Spaaace Rules are suspended and have no force or effect until Spaaace is Revived. 4. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Politics Rules are suspended and have no force or effect until Politics is Revived. 5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of Astronomor. 6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics has already been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of Clork. 7. If Politics and Spaaace have both been Revived, then any player CAN cause this Rule to repeal itself with Notice. 8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When this Rule is triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics Rules are automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless Politics has been Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this Rule is automatically repealed.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
What if, by ratification, we reset all Spaaace and Politics switches to their default values before suspending? On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:08 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I vote AGAINST 8177. > I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177. > > As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space early on, as have > others. Willing to sit out of a subgame this long, but not through > a whole revival. > > On 5/19/2019 6:49 PM, Aris Merchant 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 3, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid > > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > > conditional votes). > > > > IDAuthor(s) AITitle > > > --- > > 8177 Aris, [1] 3.0 Side-Game Suspension Act (v3) > > > > The proposal pool is currently empty. > > > > [1] D Margaux, G. > > > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. > > > > // > > ID: 8177 > > Title: Side-Game Suspension Act (v3) > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: D Margaux, G. > > > > Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Side-Game Suspension", with the > > following text: > > > > > >1. The Spaaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591, > 2592, > > 2593 and 2594. > > > >2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536, > 2537, > > 2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543. > > > >3. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Spaaace Rules are > suspended and > > have no force or effect until Spaaace is Revived. > > > >4. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Politics Rules are > > suspended and have no force or effect until Politics is Revived. > > > >5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has > already > > been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office > > of Astronomor. > > > >6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics has > already > > been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of > Clork. > > > >7. If Politics and Spaaace have both been Revived, then any player > CAN cause > > this Rule to repeal itself with Notice. > > > >8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When this > Rule is > > triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics > Rules are > > automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless > > Politics has been > > Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in > ascending > > numerical order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this > Rule is > > automatically repealed. > > > -- D. Margaux
