Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
Alexis wrote: > On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 19:22, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On 2/1/20 7:20 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > I submit a proposal as follows: > > > > > > Title: Unrepetition > > > AI: 3 > > > Chamber: Efficiency > > > > > > Perhaps the H. Promotor should order this first in the batch so that the > > other proposals have a definite ruleset to work with? If not, I'll try > > to remember to resolve it first. > > You need to specify the order of rule changes. Also, not only does Legislation seem relatively uncontroversially to be a more appropriate chamber, but AI 3.0 proposals are always Democratic anyway. (proposal idea seems good in principle, though.) -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 00:35, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 19:22, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On 2/1/20 7:20 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > I submit a proposal as follows: > > > > > > Title: Unrepetition > > > AI: 3 > > > Chamber: Efficiency > > > > > > Perhaps the H. Promotor should order this first in the batch so that the > > other proposals have a definite ruleset to work with? If not, I'll try > > to remember to resolve it first. > > You need to specify the order of rule changes. What if I added ", in the reverse of the order in which the changes occurred" to the end? - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 19:22, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 2/1/20 7:20 PM, James Cook wrote: > > I submit a proposal as follows: > > > > Title: Unrepetition > > AI: 3 > > Chamber: Efficiency > > > Perhaps the H. Promotor should order this first in the batch so that the > other proposals have a definite ruleset to work with? If not, I'll try > to remember to resolve it first. You need to specify the order of rule changes.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 2/1/20 7:20 PM, James Cook wrote: > I submit a proposal as follows: > > Title: Unrepetition > AI: 3 > Chamber: Efficiency Perhaps the H. Promotor should order this first in the batch so that the other proposals have a definite ruleset to work with? If not, I'll try to remember to resolve it first. -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 00:10, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Are we sure the first attempt at resolving the decisions didn't > succeed? I've lost track. > > In case we're a the situation like Alexis outlined, where the first > succeeds platonically and this one succeeds via self-ratification, I > tried to work out what happened if these proposals were enacted twice. We are also in the unfortunate situation that we do not know if twg has won the game, as a result of the Lime Ribbon award. -Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 2/1/20 12:09 AM, James Cook wrote: > Are we sure the first attempt at resolving the decisions didn't > succeed? I've lost track. > > In case we're a the situation like Alexis outlined, where the first > succeeds platonically and this one succeeds via self-ratification, I > tried to work out what happened if these proposals were enacted twice. > > Generally harmless, but may result in unintended repetition in some rule text: I don't even know anymore; this probably needs a proposal to resolve. -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
Are we sure the first attempt at resolving the decisions didn't succeed? I've lost track. In case we're a the situation like Alexis outlined, where the first succeeds platonically and this one succeeds via self-ratification, I tried to work out what happened if these proposals were enacted twice. Generally harmless, but may result in unintended repetition in some rule text: > PROPOSAL 8295 (Rewards Reform Act) > FOR (8): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, twg > AGAINST (1): omd > PRESENT (0): > BALLOTS: 9 > AI (F/A): 24/3 (AI=3.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED Would result in "(Assessor)" being appended twice to the first item, and similarly for the other offices appended to list items. > PROPOSAL 8302 (Generic Petitions) > FOR (8): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, twg > AGAINST (0): > PRESENT (3): G.$, o, omd > BALLOTS: 11 > AI (F/A): 24/0 (AI=1.5) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED Would append this paragraph twice to R2143: If an office has a discretionary power, and a player publicly petitions the officer to apply that power in a specific case or manner, the officer SHALL publicly respond in a timely fashion. > PROPOSAL 8303 (Contract Patency v3) > FOR (4): Aris, Falsifian, Jason, Rance > AGAINST (0): > PRESENT (5): Alexis, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg > BALLOTS: 9 > AI (F/A): 12/0 (AI=3.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED Would add "A pledge ceases to exist at the end of its time window." twice to the end of the first paragraph of R2450. > PROPOSAL 8304 (Rewards Reform Act - v1.1 Patch) > FOR (8): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, twg > AGAINST (1): omd > PRESENT (0): > BALLOTS: 9 > AI (F/A): 24/3 (AI=2.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED Would add the "in an officially timely fashion" list item twice. > PROPOSAL 8305 (Keeping Up With the Times) > FOR (7): Alexis, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, o, omd, twg > AGAINST (1): Aris > PRESENT (3): Gaelan, Jason, Rance > BALLOTS: 11 > AI (F/A): 22/3 (AI=3.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED May cause patent titles to be renamed a second time, but to the names they already had, so probably that's fine? - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:10 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 1/30/2020 9:03 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 16:55, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > > wrote: > >> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > >> wrote: > >>> Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3 > >>> > >>> Amend R208 by replacing: > >>> 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > >>> was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' > >>> valid ballots. > >>> with: > >>> 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > >>> was more than one valid option, provides reasonably accurate > >>> tally of the voters' valid ballots. > >>> > >>> [The outcome still needs to be correct. The voting tallies can still be > >>> CoEd > >>> and a correction posted, but the effective resolution remains the first > >>> one > >>> with the correct outcome, provided the ballots are "reasonably" accurate]. > >> > >> No objections to changing to a standard of being reasonably correct, > >> but in this case I would like to see a requirement that the correct > >> tally be posted, even if that doesn't interfere with the > >> self-ratification. Also note that I have an in-flight proposal to > >> rewrite some of this. > > > > Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: > > > > * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify > > anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes > > the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it > > is self-ratifying that that occurred. > > > > * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution > > message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). > > > > Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, > > even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, > > there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they > > were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty > > this version would introduce about what the outcome was. > > Unless I'm misreading your suggestion, wouldn't this leave us open to saying > weeks/months/years later, if a deep error turns up, "since that result was > posted incorrectly, we've been playing under the wrong rules for a while"? That's what I'm getting too, and that worries me. The rule is called "Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges" because its point is to stop the results of decisions from being challenged after a certain time. Finding out that a proposal that was believed to have passed had failed, or vice versa, could be a huge mess with massive indirect effects. Decision results are actually one of the most important things to ratify, and I'd oppose stopping ratifying them. -Aris
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/2020 9:23 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I went back and forth on that as a possibility - I don't have a strong reason >> so maybe a SHALL is best - the only issue being what Alexis pointed out, that >> if we want (as e suggested) to require the Assessor respond to inaccurate >> tallies that don't change the result, we need to hard-code that, if the >> individual ballots don't self-ratify. (A special category of "no this >> doesn't >> self ratify but the Officer has to respond to the CoE anyway"). > > That's not how Rule 2201 is written. An officer always has to respond > to a CoE, whether the document is self-ratifying or not, so long as e > was required to publish the document. So creating an extra category is > unnecessary. :) Oh, thanks! I'd forgotten that change in R2201.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/2020 9:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Anyway, I like G.'s proposal, but why even require a reasonably >> accurate tally for it to be self-ratifying? Just require >> decision+outcome, and make the rest SHALL. > > I went back and forth on that as a possibility - I don't have a strong reason > so maybe a SHALL is best - the only issue being what Alexis pointed out, that > if we want (as e suggested) to require the Assessor respond to inaccurate > tallies that don't change the result, we need to hard-code that, if the > individual ballots don't self-ratify. (A special category of "no this doesn't > self ratify but the Officer has to respond to the CoE anyway"). So - just checking here. Under the current R208, it would be fine to say "the Decision on Proposal X had 8 voters, and a total strength of 18 FOR and 6 AGAINST, and was therefore ADOPTED" without mentioning any particular voter's name, right? Do we want to mandate actual name reporting? -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 1/30/2020 9:06 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 17:03, James Cook wrote: > >> Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: > >> > >> * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify > >> anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes > >> the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it > >> is self-ratifying that that occurred. > >> > >> * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution > >> message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). > >> > >> Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, > >> even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, > >> there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they > >> were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty > >> this version would introduce about what the outcome was. > > > > As I often do, I sent this just a little too soon and should have > > thought more. An obvious flaw with what I wrote is that we may never > > know for sure what exactly self-ratified, whereas the current system > > explicitly makes the outcome ratify. > > > > Anyway, I like G.'s proposal, but why even require a reasonably > > accurate tally for it to be self-ratifying? Just require > > decision+outcome, and make the rest SHALL. > > I went back and forth on that as a possibility - I don't have a strong reason > so maybe a SHALL is best - the only issue being what Alexis pointed out, that > if we want (as e suggested) to require the Assessor respond to inaccurate > tallies that don't change the result, we need to hard-code that, if the > individual ballots don't self-ratify. (A special category of "no this doesn't > self ratify but the Officer has to respond to the CoE anyway"). That's not how Rule 2201 is written. An officer always has to respond to a CoE, whether the document is self-ratifying or not, so long as e was required to publish the document. So creating an extra category is unnecessary. :) -Aris
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/2020 9:06 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 17:03, James Cook wrote: >> Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: >> >> * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify >> anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes >> the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it >> is self-ratifying that that occurred. >> >> * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution >> message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). >> >> Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, >> even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, >> there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they >> were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty >> this version would introduce about what the outcome was. > > As I often do, I sent this just a little too soon and should have > thought more. An obvious flaw with what I wrote is that we may never > know for sure what exactly self-ratified, whereas the current system > explicitly makes the outcome ratify. > > Anyway, I like G.'s proposal, but why even require a reasonably > accurate tally for it to be self-ratifying? Just require > decision+outcome, and make the rest SHALL. I went back and forth on that as a possibility - I don't have a strong reason so maybe a SHALL is best - the only issue being what Alexis pointed out, that if we want (as e suggested) to require the Assessor respond to inaccurate tallies that don't change the result, we need to hard-code that, if the individual ballots don't self-ratify. (A special category of "no this doesn't self ratify but the Officer has to respond to the CoE anyway"). -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 12:10, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Unless I'm misreading your suggestion, wouldn't this leave us open to saying > weeks/months/years later, if a deep error turns up, "since that result was > posted incorrectly, we've been playing under the wrong rules for a while"? I agree. But the kernel of the idea, of providing an accurate time of resolution, is good. Currently, the following sequence is a problem: - There is an incorrect CoE made against a resolution. - The Assessor accepts it. - The Assessor posts a new resolution, which self-ratifies. The first resolution is correct and platnoically succeeds. The CoE does not interfere with this. The second resolution then ratifies the resolution again, possibly even adopting the proposal a second time. If it does not, there's uncertainty as to when it was resolved. But the core of Falsifian's idea it seem is that the resolution time is fixed upon the first attempt, and CoEs about the result only address what the result was, platonically, at the time of the resolution. I don't have time to draft a fix for this, though, as it seems relatively involved at first blush, since it requires separating out the various pieces of a resolution. Likely, we need something along the lines of making the decisions existence self-ratify, as well as the statement that its voting period has ended (an important oversight in the existing things ratified), and that it was resolved in this message. Then, separately, we have the statement of outcome self-ratify, as well as separate requirements for posting a tally, even if incorrect. And then we need to make sure that CoEs against these things work correctly. There's a much bigger issue I just nocied, though, and that I do have enough time to draft as I've already circulated a proto-proto and it's of smaller scope. I would like to get it out soon, so I will circulate a proto for that in hopes of being able to get it into this week's distribution (and note to the Promotor, I am prepared to distribute it myself via Manifesto, so don't worry about having to hold off if it's especially inconvenient to you). -Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/2020 9:03 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 16:55, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3 >>> >>> Amend R208 by replacing: >>> 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there >>> was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' >>> valid ballots. >>> with: >>> 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there >>> was more than one valid option, provides reasonably accurate >>> tally of the voters' valid ballots. >>> >>> [The outcome still needs to be correct. The voting tallies can still be >>> CoEd >>> and a correction posted, but the effective resolution remains the first one >>> with the correct outcome, provided the ballots are "reasonably" accurate]. >> >> No objections to changing to a standard of being reasonably correct, >> but in this case I would like to see a requirement that the correct >> tally be posted, even if that doesn't interfere with the >> self-ratification. Also note that I have an in-flight proposal to >> rewrite some of this. > > Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: > > * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify > anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes > the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it > is self-ratifying that that occurred. > > * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution > message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). > > Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, > even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, > there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they > were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty > this version would introduce about what the outcome was. Unless I'm misreading your suggestion, wouldn't this leave us open to saying weeks/months/years later, if a deep error turns up, "since that result was posted incorrectly, we've been playing under the wrong rules for a while"?
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 17:03, James Cook wrote: > Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: > > * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify > anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes > the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it > is self-ratifying that that occurred. > > * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution > message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). > > Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, > even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, > there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they > were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty > this version would introduce about what the outcome was. As I often do, I sent this just a little too soon and should have thought more. An obvious flaw with what I wrote is that we may never know for sure what exactly self-ratified, whereas the current system explicitly makes the outcome ratify. Anyway, I like G.'s proposal, but why even require a reasonably accurate tally for it to be self-ratifying? Just require decision+outcome, and make the rest SHALL. - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 16:55, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3 > > > > Amend R208 by replacing: > > 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > > was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' > > valid ballots. > > with: > > 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > > was more than one valid option, provides reasonably accurate > > tally of the voters' valid ballots. > > > > [The outcome still needs to be correct. The voting tallies can still be > > CoEd > > and a correction posted, but the effective resolution remains the first one > > with the correct outcome, provided the ballots are "reasonably" accurate]. > > No objections to changing to a standard of being reasonably correct, > but in this case I would like to see a requirement that the correct > tally be posted, even if that doesn't interfere with the > self-ratification. Also note that I have an in-flight proposal to > rewrite some of this. Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it is self-ratifying that that occurred. * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty this version would introduce about what the outcome was. - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3 > > Amend R208 by replacing: > 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' > valid ballots. > with: > 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > was more than one valid option, provides reasonably accurate > tally of the voters' valid ballots. > > [The outcome still needs to be correct. The voting tallies can still be CoEd > and a correction posted, but the effective resolution remains the first one > with the correct outcome, provided the ballots are "reasonably" accurate]. No objections to changing to a standard of being reasonably correct, but in this case I would like to see a requirement that the correct tally be posted, even if that doesn't interfere with the self-ratification. Also note that I have an in-flight proposal to rewrite some of this. -Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/2020 7:47 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:43, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 1/30/20 10:21 AM, James Cook wrote: >>> Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My >>> understanding is that you're not publishing a report here; you're >>> re-taking some by-announcement actions in case your first attempt at >>> those actions failed. >>> >>> - Falsifian >> >> >> You're probably right, although I think the resolutions would still be >> self-ratifying. > > I'm not sure. R2034 says a message that "purports to resolve" an > Agoran decision is self-ratifying. If we end up deciding your message > didn't constitute a by-announcement action resolving the decisions, we > might also decide by the same reasoning that your message didn't > purport to resolve them, unless there's some difference between > announcing that you do something and sending a message purporting to > do it. Dunno if it's relevant, but the tally of ballot options by voter may or may not self-ratify. The total number of voters (for quorum) and the option selected self-ratify. The question is whether the "as indicated" in "resolved as indicated" means just the outcome (the option selected), or includes the full tally. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:43, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 1/30/20 10:21 AM, James Cook wrote: > > Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My > > understanding is that you're not publishing a report here; you're > > re-taking some by-announcement actions in case your first attempt at > > those actions failed. > > > > - Falsifian > > > You're probably right, although I think the resolutions would still be > self-ratifying. I'm not sure. R2034 says a message that "purports to resolve" an Agoran decision is self-ratifying. If we end up deciding your message didn't constitute a by-announcement action resolving the decisions, we might also decide by the same reasoning that your message didn't purport to resolve them, unless there's some difference between announcing that you do something and sending a message purporting to do it. - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/20 10:21 AM, James Cook wrote: > Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My > understanding is that you're not publishing a report here; you're > re-taking some by-announcement actions in case your first attempt at > those actions failed. > > - Falsifian You're probably right, although I think the resolutions would still be self-ratifying. -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/2020 7:21 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 14:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >> Draft revision, since this is complicated: >> >> All of these CoEs are accepted. >> >> Revised resolutions for 8292-8307: > > Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My > understanding is that you're not publishing a report here; you're > re-taking some by-announcement actions in case your first attempt at > those actions failed. Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3 Amend R208 by replacing: 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' valid ballots. with: 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there was more than one valid option, provides reasonably accurate tally of the voters' valid ballots. [The outcome still needs to be correct. The voting tallies can still be CoEd and a correction posted, but the effective resolution remains the first one with the correct outcome, provided the ballots are "reasonably" accurate].
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 14:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > Draft revision, since this is complicated: > > All of these CoEs are accepted. > > Revised resolutions for 8292-8307: Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My understanding is that you're not publishing a report here; you're re-taking some by-announcement actions in case your first attempt at those actions failed. - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/20 8:32 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Alright, fine. CoE on each resolution for a proposal with number not > less than 8292, as well as 8290: they're wrong. For the next seven > days, I pledge not to deny any of these CoEs. > > Updated assessments coming... eventually. I have to update my > automation for support for voting strengths per-proposal. The Logical > Rulesets will also be delayed until I can get the assessments out and > verify that the changes I've made are in fact correct. > Draft revision, since this is complicated: All of these CoEs are accepted. Revised resolutions for 8292-8307: PROPOSAL 8292 (Self-Ratification Simplification Act) FOR (6): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, omd, twg AGAINST (0): PRESENT (3): Gaelan, Jason, Rance BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 18/0 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8293 (CFJ Bait) FOR (5): Aris, Bernie, Jason, Rance, twg AGAINST (5): Alexis, G.$, Gaelan, o, omd PRESENT (1): Falsifian BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 15/16 (AI=1.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8294 (Authorial Intent) FOR (0): AGAINST (9): Alexis, Aris, Falsifian, G.$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, o, omd PRESENT (2): Bernie, twg BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 0/28 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8295 (Rewards Reform Act) FOR (8): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, twg AGAINST (1): omd PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 24/3 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8296 (Divergence) FOR (6): Alexis, Aris, G.$, Gaelan, o, omd AGAINST (1): Falsifian PRESENT (4): Bernie, Jason, Rance, twg BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 19/3 (AI=1.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8297 (Imminent Failure) FOR (11): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, o, omd, twg AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 34/0 (AI=2.1) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8298 (Administrative Adjudication v3) FOR (6): Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Jason, Rance, twg AGAINST (5): Alexis, G.$, Gaelan, o, omd PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 18/16 (AI=2.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8299 (The Reset Button v2) FOR (0): AGAINST (10): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, o, twg PRESENT (1): omd BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 0/31 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8300 (Patches) FOR (6): Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Jason, Rance, twg AGAINST (5): Alexis, G.$, Gaelan, o, omd PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 18/16 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8301 (Consolidated Regulatory Recordkeeping v2) FOR (9): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, omd, twg AGAINST (2): G.$, o PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 27/7 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8302 (Generic Petitions) FOR (8): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, twg AGAINST (0): PRESENT (3): G.$, o, omd BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 24/0 (AI=1.5) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8303 (Contract Patency v3) FOR (4): Aris, Falsifian, Jason, Rance AGAINST (0): PRESENT (5): Alexis, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 12/0 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8304 (Rewards Reform Act - v1.1 Patch) FOR (8): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, twg AGAINST (1): omd PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 24/3 (AI=2.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8305 (Keeping Up With the Times) FOR (7): Alexis, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, o, omd, twg AGAINST (1): Aris PRESENT (3): Gaelan, Jason, Rance BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 22/3 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8306 (Deregistration) FOR (0): AGAINST (9): Alexis, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, o, twg PRESENT (2): Aris, omd BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 0/28 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8307 (Deregistration) FOR (0): AGAINST (10): Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, o, omd, twg PRESENT (1): Alexis BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 0/31 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED Revised resolution for 8290: PROPOSAL 8290 (More Headroom) FOR (11): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, o, omd, twg AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 34/0 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED Meaning of "$": player has voting strength 4. All proposal attributes are the same as the original resolutions for each proposals 8292-8307, and the same as the first revised resolution for 8290. -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 22:23, omd via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 5:52 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business > wrote: > > [Note that the existing "more than one option" text is basically > > tautologically true and practically useless anyway. PRESENT is an option, > > so only a decision with no other options would only have one. And even if > > we changed it, we short-circuit single-candidate elections so we might as > > well just drop that text. > > PRESENT is a valid vote, not a valid option. > Ah, good point. Regardless, we shouldn't have one-option decisions at the moment. -Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 5:52 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > [Note that the existing "more than one option" text is basically > tautologically true and practically useless anyway. PRESENT is an option, > so only a decision with no other options would only have one. And even if > we changed it, we short-circuit single-candidate elections so we might as > well just drop that text. PRESENT is a valid vote, not a valid option.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
Erm... you might want to check this list again. You have it going 3, 4, 6,
7.
-Aris
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 5:52 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 13:45, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Jason Cobb wrote:
> > > RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8287-8307
> > > =
> > >
> > > I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
> >
> > NB: The F/A ratios on several of Proposals 8292-8307, and on the second
> > attempt at 8290, are incorrect because they do not take into account the
> > amendments to voting strength made by Proposal 8291. To be specific,
> > Alexis's voting strength falls to 3 because the Prime Minister now only
> > receives a bonus (which itself is now of 2, not 1) on proposals with a
> > ministry set, which none of these do, and G.'s voting strength rises to
> > 4 because the Speaker now receives a bonus on all decisions.
> >
> > This is not a formal CoE because I don't believe it changes the
> > outcome of any of the votes.
> >
> > -twg
> >
>
> Because there are multiple contradictory proposals in this batch (trying to
> change the voting strength range to different things), and because of the
> change of voting strengths, I would like to insist on correct resolutions.
>
> However, it's not clear to me that they're actually invalid, because of the
> serious ambiguity of what constitutes a "tally".
>
> Therefore, I instead submit the following proposal:
>
> Proposal: Clearer Resolutions (AI=3)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 208 (Resolving Agoran Decisions) by replacing the third and
> fourth items in the list with the following:
> {
> 3. It specifies the quorum of the decision.
>
> 4. It specifies all the valid ballots, and no invalid ballots, on that
> decision, as of the end of the voting period, including each ballot's
> author, eir voting strength, its vote, and, if the vote is a conditional
> one, the unconditional vote to which it is evaluated.
>
> 6. The total strength of all ballots cast for each non-PRESENT option.
>
> 7. It specifies the outcome, as defined by other rules.
> }
>
> [Note that the existing "more than one option" text is basically
> tautologically true and practically useless anyway. PRESENT is an option,
> so only a decision with no other options would only have one. And even if
> we changed it, we short-circuit single-candidate elections so we might as
> well just drop that text.
>
> This is the main point of the proposal; I apologize to the Assessor that e
> does perhaps not wish to do the additional work here, but it was a
> longstanding Assessor practice and, as we are getting into the space of
> highly variable voting power again, quite necessary.]
>
> Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by appending the following
> paragraph to the end of the rule:
> {
> When used in reference to a person who has cast a vote on an Agoran
> decision, rather than to a person who is eligible to or otherwise might
> cast a vote, the term "voter" refers only to a person who has a valid
> ballot on that decision.
> }
>
> [This is slightly different from the existing definition, as it includes
> people whose votes were not valid but became valid, but such a scenario
> shouldn't happen and in any case, this lines up with existing language so
> as to prevent a weird situation where a person's vote counts towards the
> result but not quorum.]
>
> Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by replacing the text "The
> outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved, and cannot change
> thereafter." with "The outcome of a decision is fixed at the end of its
> voting period, after evaluating all votes whose values are determined only
> at the end of the voting period, and cannot change thereafter."
>
> [This prevents manipulation of voting strength post-decision from affecting
> the result because that's an absurd amount of power to offer an Assessor,
> to be able to delay or otherwise manipulate the timing of resolutions so as
> to modify voting strength after a resolution. It also simplifies eir job
> considerably by not requiring em to take into account the effects of
> proposals on voting strength as e resolves them, especially if a CoE
> results in different ordering of proposals.]
> }}}
>
