DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] kamikaze
This doesn’t really do all that much—default voting strength is 3 and max is 5, so it’s a little under a double vote. Maybe we need to increase the range of allowed voting strengths? Gaelan > On Jan 12, 2020, at 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > > I submit the following proposal, "of what use honor", AI=2: > > > > Create a Power=2 Rule, "Sacrifice", with the following text: > > The Shogun CAN sacrifice eir honour by publishing a valid Notice > of Honour that decreases eir own honour by one, while in the > same message clearly specifying a decision to adopt a proposal > that is in its voting period. The Shogun's voting strength is > on that decision is increased to its maximum possible within the > rules, provided the option identified on eir valid ballot on the > decision is AGAINST. > > [an emergency proposal stop, via a sacrifice of honour.] > > >
DIS: Proto: Bureaucratic Power
I create the following proposal: {
Title: Bureaucratic Power
AI: 2
Author: Gaelan
Create a power-2 rule titled “Bureaucrats” with the following text: {
Each rule is said to have an “affinity” for each office, an integer equal to
the sum of any points awarded by the following clauses:
* 1 point if the office is Prime Minister
* 4 points if the office is defined by the rule
* 4 points for each switch defined by the rule and tracked by the office
* 2 points if the rule defines an explicit mechanism for flipping a switch
defined by the office [goal of the word “explicit” is to avoid rules about e.g.
proposals or ratification having an affinity to everything]
* 4 points for each class of assets for which the office is recordkeepor and
for which the rule is backing document
* 4 points for each class of entity defined by the rule (other than a switch or
asset), the elements of which are listed in the office’s report
* 2 points if the rule defines an explicit mechanism for creating, destroying,
or modifying entities of a class, the elements of which are listed in the
office’s report
* 2 points if the rule specifically lists information that must be included in
the office’s report
* 2 points if the rule specifically imposes obligations on the holder of the
office, excluding an obligation to include information in a report
If there is a single office for which a rule has the highest affinity, the
holder of that office is said to be that rule’s primary bureaucrat.
The holder of each office for which that rule has affinity is said to be one of
that rule’s secondary bureaucrats, unless e is that rule’s primary bureaucrat.
If a person is the primary bureaucrat for any rule amended or repealed by a
proposal, eir voting strength is increased by 2 for Agoran decisions to adopt
that proposal.
If a person is the secondary bureaucrat for any rule amended or repealed by a
proposal, and e didn’t receive a voting strength increase from the previous
paragraph, eir voting strength is increased by 1 for Agoran decisions to adopt
that proposal.
}
Amend rule 2423 ("First Among Equals”) by appending “and decisions to adopt
proposals” to the final sentence.
}
Open questions:
Do people like the idea?
Do each of the affinity clauses work as intended? Do any rules get assigned
counter-intuitive bureaucrats?
Who bears the load of keeping track of all this? I hope a rule’s bureaucrats
are intuitive enough that we don’t need to track them, but this would still add
a fair bit to the assessor’s workload.
Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Herald] Weekly Report
On 1/12/2020 8:38 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > I knew you were going to do that. I seriously considered adding a “and > please don’t solve the problem by taking honor away from me”, but I figured > you’d take that as encouragement. Come on, I bring back a MUD, and I don’t > even get to be Shogun? Honestly. *sigh* ;) I honestly thought for a good while. :). I really really like the idea of "no one is shogun" as a mini-tradition, but I sat there thinking "but... but... it's Aris!" And now I'm kicking myself a little, because it only just clicked that at the very least, there was someone else I could have built up instead of bringing you down. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] kamikaze
On 1/12/2020 9:10 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 8:46 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: >> Create a Power=2 Rule, "Sacrifice", with the following text: >> >> The Shogun CAN sacrifice eir honour by publishing a valid Notice >> of Honour that decreases eir own honour by one, while in the >> same message clearly specifying a decision to adopt a proposal >> that is in its voting period. The Shogun's voting strength is >> on that decision is increased to its maximum possible within the > > Duplicate "is". > >> rules, provided the option identified on eir valid ballot on the >> decision is AGAINST. >> >> [an emergency proposal stop, via a sacrifice of honour.] > > What happens if you vote AGAINST, sacrifice your honor, then change > your vote to FOR? The wording makes it seem like the voting strength > increase happens at the time of the sacrifice, which would imply that > the check for a valid AGAINST ballot also happens at that time. Shoot. I was being really, really conscious of avoiding that ambiguity but looks like I failed. Will try again. > Also, the maximum possible strength is less than twice the default > strength, so this seems underpowered. Yeah, I wanted to keep it power-2 though, I thought mucking with the max would be more controversial. At least, since it only works on AGAINST votes, its power magnifies as the power of the proposal increases. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] kamikaze
On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 8:46 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > Create a Power=2 Rule, "Sacrifice", with the following text: > > The Shogun CAN sacrifice eir honour by publishing a valid Notice > of Honour that decreases eir own honour by one, while in the > same message clearly specifying a decision to adopt a proposal > that is in its voting period. The Shogun's voting strength is > on that decision is increased to its maximum possible within the Duplicate "is". > rules, provided the option identified on eir valid ballot on the > decision is AGAINST. > > [an emergency proposal stop, via a sacrifice of honour.] What happens if you vote AGAINST, sacrifice your honor, then change your vote to FOR? The wording makes it seem like the voting strength increase happens at the time of the sacrifice, which would imply that the check for a valid AGAINST ballot also happens at that time. Also, the maximum possible strength is less than twice the default strength, so this seems underpowered.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Herald] Weekly Report
On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 8:34 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 1/12/2020 3:21 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 3:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > wrote: > >> > >> On 1/12/2020 3:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> Herald's Weekly report > >>> > >>> Date of Last Report: 07 Dec 2019 > >>> Date of This Report: 12 Jan 2020 > >> > > > > While your at it, your report seems to suggest that there both is and > > isn't a Shogun at the same time, which would appear to be an error. > > Oh now *that's* something that can be taken care of. > > Notice of Honour > -1 Aris (we are all but stewards for the true Shogun). > +1 Agora (the sacrifice of the greatest restores the whole). > > :) > I knew you were going to do that. I seriously considered adding a “and please don’t solve the problem by taking honor away from me”, but I figured you’d take that as encouragement. Come on, I bring back a MUD, and I don’t even get to be Shogun? Honestly. *sigh* ;) -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills
On 1/12/2020 6:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > We haven’t awarded Silver Quills for any year since 2015. 2019’s awards > will be dealt with in this year’s awards month, but that leaves 2016, 2017, > and 2018. Would anyone mind if I, as Promotor, suggested Silver Quills for > those years? I was only Promotor for part of 2016, but it was a very > inactive year anyway, so I didn’t miss too much of the proposal history > that year. I think it's a grand idea. It'd be really interesting to see if 3 years' hindsight gives us different perspectives on what's been the most impactful. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Seeking a new mandate
On 1/12/20 10:14 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On the other hand, I haven't been very creative with the office. Even > my election-just-to-get-a-ribbon plan is simply copying the H. Arbitor > and Assessor, who did it in November. Are you planning to do something > interesting if you become Registrar? > > - Falsifian /me /mumbles something about wanting to confirm myself as non-interim/ -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Seeking a new mandate
Fair enough! I will note that I don't think I've missed a deadline on any Registrar duty in my ~8 months in the office. On the other hand, I haven't been very creative with the office. Even my election-just-to-get-a-ribbon plan is simply copying the H. Arbitor and Assessor, who did it in November. Are you planning to do something interesting if you become Registrar? - Falsifian On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 22:50, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote: > I nominate myself as a candidate. > > Election speech: “I’m not trying to abuse my existing role for ribbons.” > > Gaelan > > > On Jan 11, 2020, at 8:57 AM, James Cook via agora-business > > wrote: > > > > I initiate an election for Registrar, and nominate myself as a candidate. > > > > Election speech: "I like ribbons." >
DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills
We haven’t awarded Silver Quills for any year since 2015. 2019’s awards will be dealt with in this year’s awards month, but that leaves 2016, 2017, and 2018. Would anyone mind if I, as Promotor, suggested Silver Quills for those years? I was only Promotor for part of 2016, but it was a very inactive year anyway, so I didn’t miss too much of the proposal history that year. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3792 Assigned to G.
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 19:05, Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official > wrote: > > > > The below CFJ is 3792. I assign it to G. > > > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3792 > > > > === CFJ 3792 > === > > > > The above-quoted message contained a valid Promotor's weekly > > report. > > > > > == > > Gratuitous: > Responding Arguments: > > I'm pretty sure we've allowed this in the past by game custom. It was, > I believe, part of the intent of Proposal 8245 to allow the Promotor > to report on only the things at the beginning of the week. I also > believe I've seen other officer reports with effective dates other > than the time of their publication. At any rate, I've certainly done > something like this on at least one prior occasion, and no one > complained. [1] > I do not believe that we can read too strongly into history here, unless the possibility that this was a violation had actually been raised and considered. Furthermore, I would argue that Proposal 8245 actually indicates that the previous interpretation of that rule was that the Promotor was bound to, at some time during the week, to distribute all Proposals then in the Proposal Pool. It took a proposal to change the interpretation to refer to a single point in time. Additionally, I think Alexis's reading of the rule isn't mandated by > the text. It is true that the Promotor's report includes "a list of > all proposals in the Proposal Pool, along with their text and > attributes". Certainly, I'll grant that the most common sense > interpretation of the that is that it means the list of all proposals > *currently* in the pool, but the word "currently" appears nowhere in > the text, and must be supplied by the reader. I propose an alternate > interpretation: the report being talked about is the Promotor's weekly > report, and so it must be current as of some point *in the week* in > which it is published. This interpretation has numerous advantages: It > gives officers time in which to make sure their reports are accurate, > by publishing and receiving comments on drafts, and thus is in the > interest of the game. Furthermore, it is in accordance with game > custom on the matter. I argue that these concerns are sufficient that > we must set aside our first reading of the text and read it in the > manner I proposed. > The Promotor must, at some point in the week, publish the the abstract information "a list of all Proposals in the Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes". There is no need for the word "currently" simply because it is implied. English grammar treats this as an elided a conjunction and copula here: "a list of all Proposals [that are] in the Proposal Pool". A list of Proposals that were in the Proposal Pool yesterday is not a list of Proposals in the Proposal Pool today. We would require a clear contextual basis for a different time reference to be inferred, like "a list of all Proposals [then] in the Proposal Pool". Moreover, other officers' reporting requirements do contain clear references to the present. Switches, for instance, include "the value of each instance of that switch whose value is not its default value" in officers' reports. There is no reasonable way to interpret this as "for some point in time in the week, the value of each instance of that switch whose value was not, at that point, its default value". Aris's argument can thus only be grounded in Rule 2143, and apply equally to all reports of officers. But again, this is a massive stretch. "If any information is defined by the rules as part of that person's weekly report, then e SHALL maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is part of eir weekly duties." Aris's interpretation would mean that an officer could, at the end of a month, publish the state of eir tracked information as of the beginning of the month. This would imply that they did not have an up to date copy of the information, in violation of eir duties to maintain it. But the duty is clearly to publish the information which they maintain, so Aris's interpretation would require an officer to maintain up-to-date information but to publish outdated information. Alternatively, Aris's argument is basically that a document can be considered to be a Promotor's report at some point during the week, and thus publishing it at another point meets the requirement. But Rule 2143 makes no reference to a document being a report. A report, for the purpose of Rule 2143, is merely a specification of the information which must be published. Finally, Rule 217 does not permit us to consider alternative interpretations on the same footing as the text. The text can only be supplanted where it is "silent,
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
G. wrote: > Penalty box: Murphy, D. Margaux, twg. Oops, is this because of the CFJ I missed before the new year that you reassigned to omd? Sorry about that. I was having a busy spell and probably ought to have recused myself immediately, but managed to convince myself that I would get around to judging it that week. My new year's resolution is already aimed at addressing my time management issues, so I expect to do better in the future. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Request
On 1/12/2020 2:36 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 11:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> >> Like with [Proposal], please put/edit [CFJ] into subject lines >> when you call a CFJ, if you think about it :). >> > > I can appreciate the use of this, but changing subject lines always leaves > me wary. Though given that the mailing lists already do it, perhaps it's > not so bad. Unless we get BUS: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Re: DIS: ... > If you have a CFJ at the bottom of a long thread like that, it's (more likely than not) a tangle of replies and arguments and evidence. I speak from very recent experience. I'd think best practice would be to start a new thread and lay it out. Failing that, marking it as a new subject seems minor to me? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 18:12, Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Notice of Honour: > > -1 Karma to Jason Cobb for calling a CFJ on eir own scam and presenting > no > > arguments about the most critical aspects of eir case. > > +1 Karma to omd for the detailed additional arguments. > > Yeah, that's fair; I absolutely had just assumed I was able to > repeatedly win the election, probably just because it felt obvious to > me, since that was the entire purpose of my proposal. FWIW, I would have > also argued that being able to reinstall an old uncontested winner would > work (and that was in fact my original idea for a scam, but I thought it > would be too destructive). > I didn't bring the proposal into the judgment itself, but you didn't change the basic parameters of what elections were eligible for acclamation. If I had found that the past elections remained eligible to be acclaimed again, I probably would have ruled in favour of you even without your proposal. Your proposal definitely made that certain. I think that arguing that old uncontested winners would still work would have been completely in line with the scam. Certainly, if the text had been a bit more clear, that would have been an inescapable conclusion and I would have had no choice but to rule in your favour. As for R2602, I had just taken it at face value, so it hadn't even > crossed my mind that it would require being addressed in a judgement. > Yes, the frustration was mostly aimed at the bit about the elections. The R2602 thing was clearly a side-story, but one that I felt needed addressing once I realized the lack of clarity in that rule, and the potential, even if unlikely, for your scam to have succeeded anyway. I personally take the view that Agora's inquiry system requires judges to do their best to investigate all aspects of a judgment, even ones that weren't obviously in dispute to begin with. That definitely moves away from platonism, though, and it can definitely be fun when a judge ends up with a surprising ruling about something that had been taken for granted. My own most memorable one was ruling that conditional votes didn't work at all. Notice of Honour: > > -1 Jason Cobb: managing to keep the gamestate uncertain for ~1 month > with this scam attempt (sorry, H. Treasuror). > > +1 Alexis: amazing judgement > > -- > Jason Cobb >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Herald] Weekly Report
On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 3:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > On 1/12/2020 3:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Herald's Weekly report > > > > Date of Last Report: 07 Dec 2019 > > Date of This Report: 12 Jan 2020 > While your at it, your report seems to suggest that there both is and isn't a Shogun at the same time, which would appear to be an error. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Request
On 1/12/20 5:36 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 11:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> Like with [Proposal], please put/edit [CFJ] into subject lines >> when you call a CFJ, if you think about it :). >> > I can appreciate the use of this, but changing subject lines always leaves > me wary. Though given that the mailing lists already do it, perhaps it's > not so bad. Unless we get BUS: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Re: DIS: ... I don't think they add another layer to the beginning if the prefix is already in there. So "DIS: Re; BUS:" won't become "BUS: Re: DIS: Re: BUS". -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Request
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 11:12, Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Like with [Proposal], please put/edit [CFJ] into subject lines > when you call a CFJ, if you think about it :). > I can appreciate the use of this, but changing subject lines always leaves me wary. Though given that the mailing lists already do it, perhaps it's not so bad. Unless we get BUS: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Re: DIS: ...
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3790 Assigned to G.
On 1/12/20 4:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > The below CFJ is 3790. I assign it to G.. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3790 > > === CFJ 3790 === > > The sending of this message (the entire message, not the enclosed > message) caused the Officeholder of Comptrollor to be flipped. > > == > > Caller:twg I called this CFJ, not twg. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] citation expansion
G. wrote: > I submit the following Proposal, AI=3, "no fake CFJs needed": > > > Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing this text: > > 3. Initiate an inquiry case regarding the truth of the claim > (if the subject is actually a matter of law), or cite a > relevant existing inquiry case. > > with this text: > > 3. Initiate a CFJ regarding the truth of the claim (if the > subject is actually a matter of law), or cite an existing > CFJ or other public process that has a reasonable > expectation of resolving the matter of controversy. > > [ > Inspired by this from Falsifian: > > I respond to my own CoE by calling a CFJ: "In December, I flipped o's, > > Bernie's and Rance's master switches to Agora". I intend to withdraw > > that CFJ soon, but first I want to use it again for a similar CoE on > > this week's report (to be published soon). > > The "cite an existing CFJ" requirement can lead to dummy CFJs with no > purpose - e.g. i there's a Proposal that's fixing things, that could be > cited too. The "reasonable expectation" mirrors the language of R217. > ] > > Nitpick, but could we split the second half (from "cite an existing CFJ...") out into a 4th list item? The paragraph 2201(2)(3) always seemed a bit unwieldy when the other items in the list were only a few words, and now that the part about citations doesn't even refer exclusively to the "initiate a CFJ" situation, it makes even less sense to treat it as a single option. -twg
DIS: Re: Fwd: Re: BUS: Income
I think I withdhrew that CFJ recently. On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 17:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > I wrote: > > If Falsifian has not already done so, I call the CFJ indicated > > below. I bar Falsifian. > > [...] > > Falsifian wrote: > > > CFJ: I successfully earned 10 Coins in the above-quoted message sent > > > December 27. > > Oh crud - the CFJ statement uses the "I" pronoun so switching the Caller > doesn't fly... I withdraw the above CFJ (if I called it). > > If Falsifian did not call the below CFJ on or around 27-Dec-19, I call > the following CFJ, barring Falsifian: > > > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 18:54, James Cook wrote: > >> On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 at 01:13, James Cook wrote: > >>> I earn 5 Coins for publishing this week's Registrar weekly report. > >>> I earn 5 Coins for publishing this week's Treasuror weekly report. > >> > >> Disclaimer: I think the below actions will only succeed if the ones I > >> quoted above failed due to mailing list troubles: > >> > >> I earn 5 Coins for publishing last week's Registrar weekly report. > >> I earn 5 Coins for publishing last week's Treasuror weekly report. > > CFJ: Falsifian successfully earned 10 Coins in the above-quoted message sent > December 27. > > In the case log, I intend to note the statement like this temporarily: > "I [Falsifian] successfully earned 10 Coins in the above-quoted message sent > December 27." > > and will replace it in the record when the results are determined. > > I'm gonna wait a few more hours before going forward with assignments in > case someone thinks I've doubly-munged things... Falsifian if you want to > withdraw yours and re-call the whole thing, I'll withdraw mine (or I'll just > sort it out in a while). > > -G. >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On 1/11/2020 2:55 PM, omd via agora-business wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:38 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official > wrote: >> I recuse omd from CFJ 3783 (I know you put forward some preliminary >> thoughts on the case omd, which is why I waited a bit, but it's been a >> long time on this case now). >> >> I assign CFJ 3783 to Alexis. > > > Sorry. I kept trying to get to it... but I kept putting it off. No worries! Mainly just wanted to move on since the judge before you was also recused, so this one was lingering. Gonna accept this as a R2492 apology (in part so you can sort out the fora question!) :).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Seeking a new Treasuror
On 1/11/2020 2:27 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > G. wrote: >> When Jason Cobb pulled the 18K scam there was some bit of discussion that we >> might be over coins or ready for something new there - what do people think. >> My opinion is that the zombie system is working reasonably, and we need some >> manner to allocate zombies (preferably weighted by players' contributions to >> the game) if we get rid of coins, but otw I don't mind. > > Not familiar with that abbreviation? Wiktionary thinks it means "on the > way", but that doesn't seem to make sense in context. Huh. in the circle of people I text with it's used pretty regularly as short for 'otherwise'. I just assumed it was a standard one but not sure now that I've actually seen it online, maybe it's purely local.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:36 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > another ribbon". Can you suggest any other interpretation that the > > author of the rule could plausibly have intended? > > > > The intent of the rules is excluded entirely from the list of > considerations in Rule 217. Personally, I'd argue that 'what it seems like the author intended, based on the text' is largely equivalent as a factor to "common sense". (As opposed to 'what the author claims e intended', or 'what the author actually intended', both of which are definitely excluded.) In particular, I think that applies even in scam-type situations, where the author clearly intended one thing yet the text unambiguously says something else. In those cases, I think "common sense" would counsel going by the intent, but it's overruled because "the text of the rules takes precedence", as well as because literalism is itself a "game custom".
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 8:36 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > I would like to ask for arguments for an issue completely unaddressed in > arguments: How does Rule 2602's use of a continuously-evaluated condition, > as in Rule 2350 and part of Rule 103, affect the operation of the "once"? > In particular, does it make the "once" redundant because the condition > remains true and an action can be "performed once" any number of times? > Arguably this is the only interpretation permitted by the text and, > therefore, other factors do not apply. In all three of those examples, regardless of exact wording, the condition is an event having previously occurred. In Rule 2602 it's earning a ribbon, in Rule 2350 it's a decision being resolved as FAILED QUORUM, and in Rule 103 it's one or more players winning Agora. Well, I guess you're probably referring to the *other* condition in Rule 103: If at any time the office of Speaker is vacant, or when one or more players win Agora, then the Prime Minister CAN once appoint a Laureled player to the office of Speaker by announcement. But the "once" is clearly meant for "when one or more players win Agora". As worded, it still *applies* to "if at any time the office of Speaker is vacant", but it's redundant in that case. Whether "once" means nothing, as you suggested, or whether (as I think) it means 'once after each time the condition switches from false to true', it doesn't matter, because appointing someone to the office makes it no longer vacant. The only interpretation under which it wouldn't be redundant is something like "if the Prime Minister has never appointed anyone as Speaker in the history of the game", which violates common sense anyway. I think Rule 103 is relevant for a different reason: because the "win Agora" side serves as an example of the type of clause Rule 2602 is trying to imitate. In Rule 2350: If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once add the proposal back to the Proposal Pool by announcement. As I see it, the most obvious interpretation is that each resolution creates a separate seven-day window, because otherwise "the proposal" would be undefined when multiple proposals have been resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days. I suppose an alternate interpretation could be that it sets up a separate continuous condition per decision (not per resolution), and "once" means either 'once after each time the condition switches from false to true' again or 'once ever', both equivalent in this case because a decision can't be resolved more than once. But I prefer the first interpretation because it's more consistent with other clauses, such as the one in Rule 103. I also believe the first interpretation is consistent with the literal wording, because the action can still only be taken if the continuous condition is true; the per-event aspect merely clarifies "once". Bolstering the case, I can't think of a good alternative phrasing that would unambiguously choose the first interpretation, without either incurring considerable verbosity or creating other ambiguities. For example, one alternative is Rule 103's "when", but that also requires some non-literal interpretation: the Prime Minister doesn't appoint a new Speaker literally "when" – at the same time as – someone wins. Finally, in Rule 2602, I believe "once per earning" would be the best interpretation even without "(until e earns another ribbon)", for similar reasons as above. But the parenthetical serves to clarify and make it the only possible interpretation.
