Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6302-6323
comex wrote: On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: comex wrote: On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: comex wrote: 6310 D 1 2.0 coppro Maple Leaf Dominance AGAINST, grammatically incorrect (it's vs its) and despite the AI it would create a Power=1 rule by default Bah. Proposal 6310 (AI=2.0, Interest=1): Maple Leaf Dominance 2.0 The above, if an attempt to initiate an Agoran Decision, lacks a clear indication of the options available and is incorrect, as Proposal 6310's title is not Maple Leaf Dominance 2.0. Negative; it was a submission of a proposal, and should be interpreted as such. Why did you label it with the ID number of an existing proposal? Typo. I copy-pasted it from Wooble's distribution and forgot to cut that.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6302-6323
On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 23:55 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: 6310 D 1 2.0 coppro Maple Leaf Dominance PRESENT (I will inform Prime Minster Stephen Harper at p...@pm.gc.ca if this passes; neither Queen Elizabeth II nor Governor General Michaëlle Jean appears to be reachable by e-mail) Queen Elizabeth II is known to have an email address; unfortunately, it is not generally known what it is. (I also suspect it's likely to be send-only.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6302-6323
Alex Smith wrote: On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 23:55 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: 6310 D 1 2.0 coppro Maple Leaf Dominance PRESENT (I will inform Prime Minster Stephen Harper at p...@pm.gc.ca if this passes; neither Queen Elizabeth II nor Governor General Michaëlle Jean appears to be reachable by e-mail) Queen Elizabeth II is known to have an email address; unfortunately, it is not generally known what it is. (I also suspect it's likely to be send-only.) Unfortunately, that proposal won't work as has been pointed out. Please vote AGAINST and vote FOR the corrected version next week.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6302-6323
On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 20:06 +0100, Charles Walker wrote: On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: coppro wrote: Alex Smith wrote: On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 23:55 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: 6310 D 1 2.0 coppro Maple Leaf Dominance PRESENT (I will inform Prime Minster Stephen Harper at p...@pm.gc.ca if this passes; neither Queen Elizabeth II nor Governor General Michaëlle Jean appears to be reachable by e-mail) Queen Elizabeth II is known to have an email address; unfortunately, it is not generally known what it is. (I also suspect it's likely to be send-only.) Unfortunately, that proposal won't work as has been pointed out. Please vote AGAINST and vote FOR the corrected version next week. Ah, right, it would create a rule not powerful enough to define a person. I retract my vote on it and vote AGAINST instead. Ditto. Why is defining a person secured? To prevent an escalation from low to high power by defining a huge number of people, and using them to invade the game. (I'm not entirely sure if that's possible, but quite likely there'd be some way in the absence of that.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6302-6323
ais523 wrote: On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 20:06 +0100, Charles Walker wrote: On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: coppro wrote: Alex Smith wrote: On Sat, 2009-05-16 at 23:55 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: 6310 D 1 2.0 coppro Maple Leaf Dominance PRESENT (I will inform Prime Minster Stephen Harper at p...@pm.gc.ca if this passes; neither Queen Elizabeth II nor Governor General Michaëlle Jean appears to be reachable by e-mail) Queen Elizabeth II is known to have an email address; unfortunately, it is not generally known what it is. (I also suspect it's likely to be send-only.) Unfortunately, that proposal won't work as has been pointed out. Please vote AGAINST and vote FOR the corrected version next week. Ah, right, it would create a rule not powerful enough to define a person. I retract my vote on it and vote AGAINST instead. Ditto. Why is defining a person secured? To prevent an escalation from low to high power by defining a huge number of people, and using them to invade the game. (I'm not entirely sure if that's possible, but quite likely there'd be some way in the absence of that.) An extra safeguard in case Support Democracy ever breaks, I think.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6302-6323
coppro wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
CoE: ais523 is not the author of this proposal; e retracted eir
version shortly before I distributed. I believe the precedent is that
it was distributed with no author, although my reading of the current
rules makes it look to me that I'm the author. In either case, it's a
recipe for timing scams.
Proposal: Fix Promotion Mistakes (AI=3)
{{{
In Rule 107, replace
An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to
initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent
to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks
any of the following information, and the lack is correctly
identified within one week after the notice is published:
with
An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to
initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent
to initiate the decision. This notice must include the following
information, and is invalid if it lacks any of this information,
or the information is incorrect (and the incorrect information
could not constitute a valid alternate method of initiating the
decision; this does not include taking other actions implicitly
as a part of the Decision's initiation).
}}
This should clear things up.
It will do precisely the opposite. Validation of notices where no one
notices an error promptly is an intentional form of quasi-ratification.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6302-6323
Ed Murphy wrote:
coppro wrote:
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
CoE: ais523 is not the author of this proposal; e retracted eir
version shortly before I distributed. I believe the precedent is that
it was distributed with no author, although my reading of the current
rules makes it look to me that I'm the author. In either case, it's a
recipe for timing scams.
Proposal: Fix Promotion Mistakes (AI=3)
{{{
In Rule 107, replace
An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to
initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent
to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks
any of the following information, and the lack is correctly
identified within one week after the notice is published:
with
An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to
initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent
to initiate the decision. This notice must include the following
information, and is invalid if it lacks any of this information,
or the information is incorrect (and the incorrect information
could not constitute a valid alternate method of initiating the
decision; this does not include taking other actions implicitly
as a part of the Decision's initiation).
}}
This should clear things up.
It will do precisely the opposite. Validation of notices where no one
notices an error promptly is an intentional form of quasi-ratification.
Oh, that was an oversight on my part; I'm about to head out, so I'll
submit a fixed proposal later.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6302-6323
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: 2009/5/16 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com: CoE: ais523 is not the author of this proposal; e retracted eir version shortly before I distributed. I believe the precedent is that it was distributed with no author, although my reading of the current rules makes it look to me that I'm the author. In either case, it's a recipe for timing scams. I nominate coppro for Promotor due to this gross negligence. There is already an ongoing election for Promotor.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6302-6323
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: 2009/5/16 Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com: This distribution of proposals 6302-6323 initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters for ordinary proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic proposals are the active first-class players, and the vote collector is the Assessor. The valid options on each decision are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT. Yikes, a lot of proposals here. For each of the following proposals, I endorse a player as follows: (a) Let S be the set of players who have voted on this proposal apart from me, ordered by the Unicode codepoint numbers of the characters in the nickname most commonly used to refer to them in a report since their last nickname change (so, although most people call me ehird, I'd count as Arnold Bros (est. 1905)). If there are two such nicknames tied for commonness, I pick the first in the same Unicode order described here, but without this tiebreaker. (b) Number the elements in S starting at 0 ascending by 1 each time, like so: 0, 1, 2, 3... (c) I endorse the player whose number in S is (6302 - the number of this proposal), modulo the number of elements in S. NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE 6302 D 1 2.0 Murphy Off the record 6303 D 0 3.0 Murphy Finish fixing contract problems 6304 D 0 2.0 Tiger Protectorate Anarchy 6305 D 1 2.0 Taral No extra votes 6306 D 1 2.0 Murphy Patch objections 6307 D 0 2.0 BobTHJ Fix NoVs for defined crimes 6308 D 1 2.0 coppro Wrong officer 6309 O 1 1.0 Quazie Failed Eris 6310 D 1 2.0 coppro Maple Leaf Dominance 6311 D 1 2.0 Quazie Voting 3rds 6312 D 1 2.0 Quazie And then there was silence. 6313 D 1 2.0 Goethe Tap the Brakes 6314 O 1 1.7 Quazie one fewer game rule 6315 D 1 2.0 Wooble Party Time 6316 O 1 1.7 comex Speaking of which... 6317 D 1 2.0 Quazie Why are these two office rules? 6318 O 1 1.0 Quazie One place for most wins. 6319 D 0 2.0 Murphy Relative senatorhood 6320 D 1 2.0 Goethe Active Partnerships Only 6321 D 0 2.0 Murphy Relative definition 6322 O 1 1.0 Wooble Better Reports 6323 O 1 1.7 ais523 Active Players Must Do Something Useful Sorry Murphy.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6302-6323
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: comex wrote: On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: comex wrote: 6310 D 1 2.0 coppro Maple Leaf Dominance AGAINST, grammatically incorrect (it's vs its) and despite the AI it would create a Power=1 rule by default Bah. Proposal 6310 (AI=2.0, Interest=1): Maple Leaf Dominance 2.0 The above, if an attempt to initiate an Agoran Decision, lacks a clear indication of the options available and is incorrect, as Proposal 6310's title is not Maple Leaf Dominance 2.0. Negative; it was a submission of a proposal, and should be interpreted as such. Why did you label it with the ID number of an existing proposal?
