DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8527-8529
On 1/10/21 12:31 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > I demonstrate the following rulebending form: > --- > > Every valid ballot on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8529 > that has a vote of FOR or that evaluates to FOR is hereby withdrawn. > > The voting period on the referendum to adopt proposal 8529 > hereby ends. > > --- My conditional vote: "For if X is even, Against if X is odd where X is the day of the month that the voting period ends." I believe my conditional vote was not withdrawn (because it couldn't be evaluated when the withdrawal happened) and then the voting period ended on an even-numbered day, making it evaluate to FOR.
DIS: proto: dictator fixes
[pretty straightforward, but I think it captures the loopholes we used or were planning to use]. proto: de-dictatorship AI-3 Amend Rule 2614 (Eclipse Light) by appending the following paragraph: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, Emergency Regulations CANNOT be enacted, amended, or repealed except as described in this Rule. Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by appending the following sentence to the final paragraph: Submitting and withdrawing ballots is secured. Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by replacing: The strength of a ballot is the voting strength of the voter who cast it on that Agoran decision. with: The strength of a ballot is the voting strength of the voter who cast it on that Agoran decision at the end of that decision's voting period. Repeal Rule 2633 (Rulebending).
Re: DIS: (proto) third level Turn Undead
ais523 wrote: On Wed, 2021-01-06 at 13:34 -0700, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: I know I did this with PAoaM, but I wanted to find a more relevant example. Turns out that the phrases "registered person" and "unregistered person" are used in Rule 869/47. I'd say that this kind of implicit relationship between adjectival switch values and that switch's possessor have plenty of precedent. IIRC there used to be an explicit rule stating that switch values could be used as adjectives to describe entities that had a switch with that value. I'm not sure when (or if) it got repealed. I suspect it did, it would probably require digging through the archives though. We do still have this from Rule 2162: "To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value. "To become X" (where X is a possible value of exactly one of the subject's switches) is to flip that switch to X. so "I become active" would explicitly be an effective equivalent to "I flip my activity switch to active".
Re: DIS: Explaining the Current Dictatorship (attn. JTAC, was BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8527-8529)
Aris wrote: On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:22 PM JTAC via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: How did rule 2633 get enacted in the first place? We let G. have a power 1.0 dictatorship, because e bribed anyone who voted with a patent title. After a bunch of early FOR votes, everyone just voted FOR, because it was going to pass anyway and they figured they might as well take the title. Even I, who am usually one of the most anti-scam Personally, I voted FOR because "if a power 1 dictatorship can escalate, then it'll be interesting to see how". Which was not wrong.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Petition] Stonemason switches [attn. Ministor, ADoP
On 1/10/21 11:44 AM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > Jason wrote: > > > I petition the ADoP to assign Stonemason a Complexity (1 seems > > appropriate). > > 1 is already the default per Rule 2632, but okay, as ADoP I assign > Stonemason a Complexity of 1. Lol sorry, I should have read more carefully. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Test
This is a test message and contains no actions.
Re: DIS: [Proto] SLR Ratification
On 1/9/21 2:47 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Since we just found the CFJ 3889 error and can't ratify one from earlier > in the fall, we should wait a month or so at least before ratifying a > December-dated one? The error 3889 caught was in the rules for about 4 months. By this logic of "well there's probably no errors if we haven't noticed them yet", we should wait another 3 months to try to ratify the December SLR. -- nix Webmastor, Ministor, Herald
Re: DIS: [Proto] SLR Ratification
On 1/9/21 2:47 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > I don't think things like Read the Ruleset Week generally are any better > at catching actual errors than other times. Here's my thinking: I'm not going to vote for ratifying any version of the rules I haven't proofread. And if I need to proofread the rules, I might as well be doing that during the designated time to read them. Sure, historically we've been bad at reading rules during RTRW. But if I knew that at the end of that week we were going to ratify those rules, I'd be more diligent. -- nix Webmastor, Ministor, Herald
Re: DIS: [Proto] SLR Ratification
I don't remember the ruleset being read even once more than usual in RTR week On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 7:48 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 1/8/2021 9:57 PM, JTAC via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 9/1/2021 10:52 am, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > >> Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 1st December, 2020, > available > >> here [1]. > >> > >> [1] > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-December/014441.html > >> > > Why are we not ratifying the version on the 31st of December instead? > > > > Because of issues like the longstanding error pointed out in CFJ 3889, I > don't think any "immediately recent" SLR should be ratified - I think the > approach should be "ratify the one of a few months ago provided no errors > have been found since then". > > For example, the last ratification is listed as 8 May 2019, but it was > ratifying the ruleset published on 24 Feb 2019 (side note: the SLR's > current last ratification date should probably list the ruleset > publication date of 24 Feb 2019 as being more important than the > ratification proposal resolution on 8 may, though both may be worth > keeping track of). > > Since we just found the CFJ 3889 error and can't ratify one from earlier > in the fall, we should wait a month or so at least before ratifying a > December-dated one? > > I don't think things like Read the Ruleset Week generally are any better > at catching actual errors than other times. > > -G. > > -- >From R. Lee
