Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:01 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > Well we have a mechanism that is basically the same as > > self-ratification (in principle) in R107 with the "lack identified > > within one week" clause. We could update this language to make use of > > self-ratification but it doesn't really change the issue of what > > missing/wrong sub-parts should invalidate the decision. > What I was going for was allowing fixing a distribution; my > understanding of the current distribution rules is that they don't give > force to revisions, while self-ratification does. > > > The author doesn't > > affect the proposal's operation so isn't a substantive aspect 99% of > > the time, but it absolutely has an effect when I come to think of how > > to vote. > > Hmm... I wasn't thinking about this. I don't really care who the author > of a proposal is, just what the text is. I guess I don't know who to > trust or not. I should clarify: when a weirdly-scammy proposal comes up (like the one I did recently) then sure, the author matters for "trust". More often, there's so many conversations going on that author is the best keyword/memory jog for me - e.g. I see a proposal that says "random fixes III" and I only know the context on what needs fixing because I remember that [author] had been leading a discussion on it recently and I saw several drafts go by so I know it had some review/editing (without that memory jog I'm more prone to shrug and vote Present). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
Well we have a mechanism that is basically the same as self-ratification (in principle) in R107 with the "lack identified within one week" clause. We could update this language to make use of self-ratification but it doesn't really change the issue of what missing/wrong sub-parts should invalidate the decision. What I was going for was allowing fixing a distribution; my understanding of the current distribution rules is that they don't give force to revisions, while self-ratification does. The author doesn't affect the proposal's operation so isn't a substantive aspect 99% of the time, but it absolutely has an effect when I come to think of how to vote. Hmm... I wasn't thinking about this. I don't really care who the author of a proposal is, just what the text is. I guess I don't know who to trust or not. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
> On 7/22/19 1:21 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:15 AM Aris Merchant < > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> > >>> I vote based on essential parameters (AI in particular but the > >>> rules include all of them). If you claim to distribute a > >>> proposal with the wrong essential parameters, you're claiming > >>> that you distributed a proposal that doesn't actually exist. > >>> > >> You may have a point. It isn’t actually significantly easier for me to > >> correct the distribution than redistribute it; my theory has historically > >> been that for some errors, such as errors in coauthor, the Agoran public > >> would find me doing that much more annoying than useful. That said, my > >> reasoning is entirely based on convenience for the public, rather than the > >> interests of the game. So, IMO, if this doesn’t work, it probably makes > >> sense to make it so it does work. What are your thoughts on the best way to > >> resolve the situation? I'm struggling with the appropriate solution. I definitely think that it's bad to have to re-start the voting 2 days after it begins and require everyone to re-cast their votes, especially for something like a wrong co-author. At the same time, both AI and Author (and the text obviously) are relevant to evaluating the proposals when voting. One issue is that AI, text, author, and co-author are all "essential parameters" so have to be treated as legally identical at the distribution stage, so if we make a precedent for co-author it would apply to the proposal's text as well. And clearly publishing the wrong text shouldn't work, right? Maybe a hybrid solution - though it would need to be implemented, maybe something like "the Promotor CAN correct a parameter within 4 days of the distribution, but after the decision needs to be re-started"? But there should be different standards to something like that: an incorrect Text should always be invalid, Author and AI within 4 days is fine, co-authors eh who cares (but there should be a mechanism for fixing that for the eventual record). Jason Cobb wrote: > Would it make sense to make the distribution of a proposal > self-ratifying? That would mean the normal CoE rules would apply, > although it would probably need some extra protection where a > substantive aspect (R2140) being wrong invalidates the distribution. Well we have a mechanism that is basically the same as self-ratification (in principle) in R107 with the "lack identified within one week" clause. We could update this language to make use of self-ratification but it doesn't really change the issue of what missing/wrong sub-parts should invalidate the decision. I think "substantive aspect" is too ill-defined on its own - and remember this is providing information for informed voting. The author doesn't affect the proposal's operation so isn't a substantive aspect 99% of the time, but it absolutely has an effect when I come to think of how to vote. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
If a conversation is primarly bottom-posted, please at least keep it bottom-posted. Doing it in both directions is the worst of both worlds. I'll reply to the substance separately. On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:29 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > > Would it make sense to make the distribution of a proposal > self-ratifying? That would mean the normal CoE rules would apply, > although it would probably need some extra protection where a > substantive aspect (R2140) being wrong invalidates the distribution. > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/22/19 1:21 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:15 AM Aris Merchant < > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >>> On 7/21/2019 1:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > >>> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 8:59 AM James Cook > >>> wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> CoE: The Proposal Pool is not empty. I think it still contains my > >>> >> "Police Power" proposal. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Rejected. It is the opinion of the Office of the Promotor that an > >>> > error in a non-substantive aspect of a proposal doesn’t invalidate > >>> > that proposal, and merely requires that it be corrected. > >>> > >>> It was wrong in one of the essential parameters, right? > >>> > >>> I think this is really contradictory to your stance on creating > >>> proposals in the first place - you're stating that a Proposer has > >>> to get it right (e.g. for AI) or the whole thing fails. But the > >>> Promotor, who is doing an official job that actually performs the > >>> duty is allowed to get it wrong, and it still succeeds? Awfully > >>> convenient on the Promotor but not good for accurate voting. > >>> > >>> That seems 100% backwards in my mind but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > >>> > >>> I vote based on essential parameters (AI in particular but the > >>> rules include all of them). If you claim to distribute a > >>> proposal with the wrong essential parameters, you're claiming > >>> that you distributed a proposal that doesn't actually exist. > >>> > >>> -G. > >>> > >> You may have a point. It isn’t actually significantly easier for me to > >> correct the distribution than redistribute it; my theory has historically > >> been that for some errors, such as errors in coauthor, the Agoran public > >> would find me doing that much more annoying than useful. That said, my > >> reasoning is entirely based on convenience for the public, rather than the > >> interests of the game. So, IMO, if this doesn’t work, it probably makes > >> sense to make it so it does work. What are your thoughts on the best way to > >> resolve the situation? > >> > >> -Aris > >> > > Bleh. I typoed pretty bad there. Instead of “the interests of the game”, > > read “a reading of the rules”. > > > > -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
Would it make sense to make the distribution of a proposal self-ratifying? That would mean the normal CoE rules would apply, although it would probably need some extra protection where a substantive aspect (R2140) being wrong invalidates the distribution. Jason Cobb On 7/22/19 1:21 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:15 AM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: On 7/21/2019 1:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 8:59 AM James Cook wrote: >> >> CoE: The Proposal Pool is not empty. I think it still contains my >> "Police Power" proposal. > > > Rejected. It is the opinion of the Office of the Promotor that an > error in a non-substantive aspect of a proposal doesn’t invalidate > that proposal, and merely requires that it be corrected. It was wrong in one of the essential parameters, right? I think this is really contradictory to your stance on creating proposals in the first place - you're stating that a Proposer has to get it right (e.g. for AI) or the whole thing fails. But the Promotor, who is doing an official job that actually performs the duty is allowed to get it wrong, and it still succeeds? Awfully convenient on the Promotor but not good for accurate voting. That seems 100% backwards in my mind but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I vote based on essential parameters (AI in particular but the rules include all of them). If you claim to distribute a proposal with the wrong essential parameters, you're claiming that you distributed a proposal that doesn't actually exist. -G. You may have a point. It isn’t actually significantly easier for me to correct the distribution than redistribute it; my theory has historically been that for some errors, such as errors in coauthor, the Agoran public would find me doing that much more annoying than useful. That said, my reasoning is entirely based on convenience for the public, rather than the interests of the game. So, IMO, if this doesn’t work, it probably makes sense to make it so it does work. What are your thoughts on the best way to resolve the situation? -Aris Bleh. I typoed pretty bad there. Instead of “the interests of the game”, read “a reading of the rules”. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:15 AM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> On 7/21/2019 1:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: >> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 8:59 AM James Cook >> wrote: >> >> >> >> CoE: The Proposal Pool is not empty. I think it still contains my >> >> "Police Power" proposal. >> > >> > >> > Rejected. It is the opinion of the Office of the Promotor that an >> > error in a non-substantive aspect of a proposal doesn’t invalidate >> > that proposal, and merely requires that it be corrected. >> >> It was wrong in one of the essential parameters, right? >> >> I think this is really contradictory to your stance on creating >> proposals in the first place - you're stating that a Proposer has >> to get it right (e.g. for AI) or the whole thing fails. But the >> Promotor, who is doing an official job that actually performs the >> duty is allowed to get it wrong, and it still succeeds? Awfully >> convenient on the Promotor but not good for accurate voting. >> >> That seems 100% backwards in my mind but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >> >> I vote based on essential parameters (AI in particular but the >> rules include all of them). If you claim to distribute a >> proposal with the wrong essential parameters, you're claiming >> that you distributed a proposal that doesn't actually exist. >> >> -G. >> > > You may have a point. It isn’t actually significantly easier for me to > correct the distribution than redistribute it; my theory has historically > been that for some errors, such as errors in coauthor, the Agoran public > would find me doing that much more annoying than useful. That said, my > reasoning is entirely based on convenience for the public, rather than the > interests of the game. So, IMO, if this doesn’t work, it probably makes > sense to make it so it does work. What are your thoughts on the best way to > resolve the situation? > > -Aris > Bleh. I typoed pretty bad there. Instead of “the interests of the game”, read “a reading of the rules”. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 7/21/2019 1:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 8:59 AM James Cook > wrote: > >> > >> CoE: The Proposal Pool is not empty. I think it still contains my > >> "Police Power" proposal. > > > > > > Rejected. It is the opinion of the Office of the Promotor that an > > error in a non-substantive aspect of a proposal doesn’t invalidate > > that proposal, and merely requires that it be corrected. > > It was wrong in one of the essential parameters, right? > > I think this is really contradictory to your stance on creating > proposals in the first place - you're stating that a Proposer has > to get it right (e.g. for AI) or the whole thing fails. But the > Promotor, who is doing an official job that actually performs the > duty is allowed to get it wrong, and it still succeeds? Awfully > convenient on the Promotor but not good for accurate voting. > > That seems 100% backwards in my mind but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > > I vote based on essential parameters (AI in particular but the > rules include all of them). If you claim to distribute a > proposal with the wrong essential parameters, you're claiming > that you distributed a proposal that doesn't actually exist. > > -G. > You may have a point. It isn’t actually significantly easier for me to correct the distribution than redistribute it; my theory has historically been that for some errors, such as errors in coauthor, the Agoran public would find me doing that much more annoying than useful. That said, my reasoning is entirely based on convenience for the public, rather than the interests of the game. So, IMO, if this doesn’t work, it probably makes sense to make it so it does work. What are your thoughts on the best way to resolve the situation? -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
On 7/21/2019 1:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 8:59 AM James Cook wrote: >> >> CoE: The Proposal Pool is not empty. I think it still contains my >> "Police Power" proposal. > > > Rejected. It is the opinion of the Office of the Promotor that an > error in a non-substantive aspect of a proposal doesn’t invalidate > that proposal, and merely requires that it be corrected. It was wrong in one of the essential parameters, right? I think this is really contradictory to your stance on creating proposals in the first place - you're stating that a Proposer has to get it right (e.g. for AI) or the whole thing fails. But the Promotor, who is doing an official job that actually performs the duty is allowed to get it wrong, and it still succeeds? Awfully convenient on the Promotor but not good for accurate voting. That seems 100% backwards in my mind but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I vote based on essential parameters (AI in particular but the rules include all of them). If you claim to distribute a proposal with the wrong essential parameters, you're claiming that you distributed a proposal that doesn't actually exist. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
> wasn't enough to specify the proposal given that 2/3 of the attributes I mean 1/3. -- - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
It says "with Notice" which, following the wording chain, eventually leads to "by announcement". Jason Cobb On 7/21/19 1:07 PM, James Cook wrote: 8206 Jason Cobb 2.0 Rule 2472 Simplification AGAINST (Doesn't specify a method.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
> > 8211 G. 3.0 Law School > PRESENT (thesis was that long hypothetical judgement, right?) Yes.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
[R. Lee: I sent this privately first, I don't mean to badger you, but I know gmail has some issues marking stuff as spam] I'm sorry, I know it probably isn't the most polite (or most effective) thing to interrogate people about votes, but that apparently won't stop me from trying. Is there any way I could get you to not vote AGAINST on 8208? I really think that the proposal would be a good thing because it (partially) unifies rules/contracts/regulations, even though it adds a good bit of text. I know you said that you liked it before (or at least an earlier version of it), but you couldn't vote for it because of your anti-rule lengthening oath (which, by my count, expires today); is that still true? Jason Cobb On 7/16/19 10:19 AM, Rebecca wrote: ttpf On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:04 PM Rebecca wrote: I vote as follows and act on Halian's behalf to make em vote to endorse R. Lee 8188A G. 3.0 Blanket Denial FOR 8189A Jason Cobb 1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2) FOR 8190A G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards FOR 8191A R. Lee 1.1 Spaceships FOR 8192A G. 1.0 auctions have fees FOR 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2 PRESENT 8202 Jason Cobb 1.7 Police Power FOR 8203 Jason Cobb 2.0 Fixing Summary Judgement FOR 8204 R. Lee 1.0 SMH @ Herald FOR 8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect FOR 8206 Jason Cobb 2.0 Rule 2472 Simplification PRESENT 8207 G. [1] no power is all powerful PRESENT 8208 Jason Cobb, [2]3.0 Regulated actions reform (v2) AGAINST 8209 D Margaux, [3] 2.0 AFK Reform Act v1.1 FOR, hope this passes, it would be 10/10 8210 Jason Cobb 2.5 Single-party Contracts AGAINST 8211 G. 3.0 Law School FOR 8212 Jason Cobb 3.0 Rule Recreation Reversal FOR 8213 nch1.0 Space Fixes FOR 8214 nch1.0 Space Isn't Linear FOR, I love this On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:41 PM D. Margaux wrote: Votes are below. Sorry if someone already raised this specifically, but CoE on the promotor distribution: If 8207 is a proposal at all, then it does have an AI per Rule 1950: "Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran decisions and proposals. ... Adoption index is an essential parameter of an Agoran decision if that decision has an adoption index." In the votes below, "FOR UNLESS" is a shorthand for "conditional vote FOR, unless a line item veto has been exercised for this proposal, in which case AGAINST." I vote as follows: On Jul 15, 2019, at 8:32 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). ID Author(s) AITitle --- 8188A G. 3.0 Blanket Denial FOR UNLESS 8189A Jason Cobb 1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2) FOR UNLESS 8190A G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards FOR UNLESS 8191A R. Lee 1.1 Spaceships FOR UNLESS 8192A G. 1.0 auctions have fees FOR UNLESS 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2 FOR UNLESS 8202 Jason Cobb 1.7 Police Power FOR UNLESS 8203 Jason Cobb 2.0 Fixing Summary Judgement PRESENT 8204 R. Lee 1.0 SMH @ Herald FOR UNLESS 8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect FOR UNLESS 8206 Jason Cobb 2.0 Rule 2472 Simplification AGAINST If I recall correctly, per a CFJ that defeated a scam I ran, the wording here matters because the Speaker CAN delay a "with Notice" action by objecting, but e CANNOT delay an action that doesn't use the Agoran Satisfaction method. 8207 G. [1] no power is all powerful TANGELO 8208 Jason Cobb, [2]3.0 Regulated actions reform (v2) PRESENT I'm sure this is an excellent proposal, but it's 6:30 am my local time, and I'm too sleepy to read it carefully enough to feel comfortable voting on it. 8209 D Margaux, [3] 2.0 AFK Reform Act v1.1 FOR UNLESS 8210 Jason Cobb 2.5 Single-party Contracts FOR UNLESS I think this could actually be a fun new mechanic. 8211 G. 3.0 Law School FOR UNLESS 8212 Jason Cobb 3.0 Rule Recreation Reversal PRESENT Havent been following the
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
Is this CoE going to be addressed, because if it isn't, then I'm pretty
sure that the distribution of that proposal didn't work.
[Sorry, don't mean to be rude to the Promotor, but it's been ~4 days and
this hasn't (to my knowledge) been addressed.]
Jason Cobb
On 7/15/19 9:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
CoE: Falsifian is the author of 8202 ("Police Power"), although e has
listed me as a co-author.
Jason Cobb
On 7/15/19 7:32 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 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).
ID Author(s) AI Title
---
8188A G. 3.0 Blanket Denial
8189A Jason Cobb 1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
8190A G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
8191A R. Lee 1.1 Spaceships
8192A G. 1.0 auctions have fees
8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2
8202 Jason Cobb 1.7 Police Power
8203 Jason Cobb 2.0 Fixing Summary Judgement
8204 R. Lee 1.0 SMH @ Herald
8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect
8206 Jason Cobb 2.0 Rule 2472 Simplification
8207 G. [1] no power is all powerful
8208 Jason Cobb, [2] 3.0 Regulated actions reform (v2)
8209 D Margaux, [3] 2.0 AFK Reform Act v1.1
8210 Jason Cobb 2.5 Single-party Contracts
8211 G. 3.0 Law School
8212 Jason Cobb 3.0 Rule Recreation Reversal
8213 nch 1.0 Space Fixes
8214 nch 1.0 Space Isn't Linear
The proposal pool is currently empty.
[1] The proposal has AI "none", whereas the decision shall have AI 1.0.
[2] Aris, omd, G., Falsifian
[3] G., Jason Cobb
Legend: A : Distribution identifier for a second distribution.
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//
ID: 8188
Title: Blanket Denial
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
do one of the following in a timely fashion:
with
do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
that clearly cites the claim of error:
//
ID: 8189
Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
Replace the text
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
with the text
Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by
announcement,
impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a
fine of
up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots in
the fine,
the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary
Judgement is
imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to
any official proceeding.
//
ID: 8190
Title: Report Rewards
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: G.
Co-authors: D Margaux
Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by prepending the following text to the 1st
paragraph:
An Office is a position described as an Office by the Rules.
Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
published in a week and the first monthly report published in a
month.
with:
* Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that
publication was the first report published for that office in
the relevant time period (week or month respectively) to fulfill
an official weekly or monthly duty: 5 coins.
//
ID: 8191
Title: Spaceships
Adoption index: 1.1
Author: R. Lee
Co-authors:
Create a spaceship in the possession of each player without a
spaceship
//
ID: 8192
Title: auctions have fees
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:
[The payment rule for auctions just says that if you happen to have an
auction debt, if you pay Agora under any circumstances, it triggers
stuff. This means, if someone happens to have two auction debts, they
can make one payment and it
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
On Thu., Jul. 18, 2019, 19:03 Jason Cobb, wrote: > > If Proposal 8210 has never taken effect, this proposal applies the > effects specified in its text. I first read "its" as referring to this new proposal, meaning this proposal only takes effect of 8210 didn't. It doesn't make sense after actually looking at what both proposals do, but you might want to clarify just in case.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
I started a proto on this a couple months ago I'll have to dig up, but summary: - Divide contracts into two classes (public and private). - A Private Contract CANNOT add any abilities, ever (can't hold assets, can't act on behalf, nothing). A Private contract is simply used to make violating a deal punishable, e.g.: "If you give me 10 coins I'll vote FOR your proposal" with the idea that if someone breaks the contract, the other party can point a finger, provide a copy of the contract to the referee, and the referee can penalize. These must have 2+ people, 1 person is pointless. Private contracts can be modified "by agreement" like the current contracts, and that agreement can be done privately. - A public contract is like what exists now in terms of abilities (act-on behalf, hold currencies), modified to allow 1-person contracts. However, the contract must be published to be created, and all of the change methods (adding parties, changing the contract, termination) have to be done publicly before they take effect - maybe just replace "can be changed by agreement between all parties" with "can be changed Without Objection from any parties" (and allow the contract to specify other public methods). Actually that's about as far as the proto got so no need to dig up, if you want to take this outline and write something go for it - I don't think too much digging into previous implementations is needed just some kind of split of the current system like the above. -G. On 7/19/2019 1:12 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: Nope, I joined about a month ago, and the extent of historical research I've > done is looking at random CFJs on G.'s website and looking back a month or > two in proposals. Jason Cobb On 7/19/19 4:08 PM, nch wrote: Have you looked at older implementations of contracts and institutions?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
Nope, I joined about a month ago, and the extent of historical research I've done is looking at random CFJs on G.'s website and looking back a month or two in proposals. Jason Cobb On 7/19/19 4:08 PM, nch wrote: Have you looked at older implementations of contracts and institutions?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
Personally I don't mind the scammability of 1 party contracts (they
rarely do much on their own, other things need to happen as well) but
they definitely need to be required to be public documents. Have you
looked at older implementations of contracts and institutions? Several
incarnations allowed one party (or even no parties) and allowed the
institution to have assets.
On 7/19/19 1:05 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I withdraw this proposal, for the same reasons as G. mentions in eir
comments on the vote AGAINST.
I change my vote on 8210 to endorse G.
Jason Cobb
On 7/18/19 7:03 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Single Party Contracts (v1.1)
Author: Jason Cobb
Coauthors: twg
Adoption Index: 2.5
Text:
{
If Proposal 8210 has never taken effect, this proposal applies the
effects specified in its text.
Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") by deleting the sentence "A contract
automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls below
two."
}
Jason Cobb
On 7/18/19 6:26 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
Notice of Honour:
+1 Aris (dealing with a complicated distribution)
-1 Hālian (being a zombie with joint highest karma)
I act on behalf of Jacob Arduino to vote to endorse myself in each
of the currently-ongoing Agoran decisions to adopt proposals.
In each of the currently-ongoing Agoran decisions to adopt proposals
8188-8195 (i.e. the redistributed ones), I vote to endorse that
proposal's author.
I vote as follows:
ID Author(s) AI Title
---
8202 Jason Cobb 1.7 Police Power
Endorse Jason Cobb
8203 Jason Cobb 2.0 Fixing Summary Judgement
Endorse Jason Cobb
8204 R. Lee 1.0 SMH @ Herald
Conditional: If a Notice of Veto has been published regarding this
proposal, then AGAINST; otherwise endorse R. Lee.
8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect
Conditional: If, in the hypothetical situation that this ballot
evaluated to FOR, no other valid ballot cast after mine would
evaluate to FOR, then endorse R. Lee; otherwise AGAINST; and if, but
for this clause, this conditional would be inextricable, then AGAINST.
8206 Jason Cobb 2.0 Rule 2472 Simplification
Endorse D. Margaux
8207 G. [1] no power is all powerful
AGAINST
8208 Jason Cobb, [2] 3.0 Regulated actions reform (v2)
Endorse Jason Cobb
8209 D Margaux, [3] 2.0 AFK Reform Act v1.1
AGAINST
8210 Jason Cobb 2.5 Single-party Contracts
AGAINST; this is broken because it does not remove the sentence "A
contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to it
falls below two." I approve of the idea in principle and would vote
FOR a fixed version of the proposal.
8211 G. 3.0 Law School
Endorse G.
8212 Jason Cobb 3.0 Rule Recreation Reversal
Endorse Jason Cobb
8213 nch 1.0 Space Fixes
Endorse nch
8214 nch 1.0 Space Isn't Linear
Endorse nch
-twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
On 7/19/2019 9:34 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:33 AM D. Margaux wrote: On Jul 18, 2019, at 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2 AGAINST. Very much not keen on timeline control given the sensitivity of our game to time (one of the ways to kill the game entirely with a lower-powered rule, potentially). I forget how I voted on this, but it worried me too. I couldn't find any bugs in the proposal, but it was complicated enough that it made me think there could be unanticipated results. So, I'm receptive to y'all's concerns. I really really don't want to break anything. That said, my proposal is intended basically as a straightforward codification of our existing precedents. It's widely agreed that codifying precedents is a good thing. Furthermore, I don't see how I could break anything vital, given that the proposed rule *explicitly* doesn't try to apply the new timeline system to anything higher powered than the new rule, such as R101 or AiaN. I'm not really sure what you're worried I'd break. If you want stronger protections added, such as an amendment to AiaN expressly exempting it from temporal trickery, I'd be happy to add that. However, I'd really like to know what vetting/strengthening process might make this more acceptable. Otherwise we can never add any rule governing this process to the ruleset, which would be an incredible shame. Not immediately but will definitely put some careful thought to this at some point in the next week - I'd sorta forgotten about the time protections which was on my todo list last year at some point. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:33 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 2019, at 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2 > > AGAINST. Very much not keen on timeline control given the > > sensitivity of our game to time (one of the ways to kill the > > game entirely with a lower-powered rule, potentially). > > I forget how I voted on this, but it worried me too. I couldn't find any bugs > in the proposal, but it was complicated enough that it made me think there > could be unanticipated results. So, I'm receptive to y'all's concerns. I really really don't want to break anything. That said, my proposal is intended basically as a straightforward codification of our existing precedents. It's widely agreed that codifying precedents is a good thing. Furthermore, I don't see how I could break anything vital, given that the proposed rule *explicitly* doesn't try to apply the new timeline system to anything higher powered than the new rule, such as R101 or AiaN. I'm not really sure what you're worried I'd break. If you want stronger protections added, such as an amendment to AiaN expressly exempting it from temporal trickery, I'd be happy to add that. However, I'd really like to know what vetting/strengthening process might make this more acceptable. Otherwise we can never add any rule governing this process to the ruleset, which would be an incredible shame. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
Typo, I can't count this. Jason Cobb On 7/19/19 12:05 PM, nch wrote: I withdraw my previous vote on 80195A and vote AGAINST.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
Also, just as a practical matter, the fact that contracts can be private is a big issue for 1-person contracts - with 2-person contracts there's at least an evidence trail that can be provided (emails), but one-person contracts don't have that. Some modification to require one-person contracts to be public would be needed. Finally, not even sure it works - just on textual definitions saying "one person may make an agreement with emself" is problematic especially if they're private contracts. That's kind of nonsense. If taken literally, it's worth pointing out that we adjudicate contract-forming broadly. In that if two parties make a deal (without using the word contract), it's an enforceable contract under many situations. With those precedents, one could argue that, one generally always agrees with emself - so every action a person takes is a contract with oneself. So - conceptually I might be convinced to take this route again, but practically, just substituting "one" for "two" is not the way to go about it - needs more thought. -G. On 7/19/2019 6:24 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: The latter - a one-person contract is basically (in past) a huge ticket to all kinds of nonsense (including, yes, a scam that would be possible now), requiring a second person really tends to damp that sort of thing out. -G. On 7/18/2019 6:48 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: Forgive me, but how much can you actually do if you are the only person party to a contract, unless there's a pre-existing rules bug? Or is the issue just that it would make such a bug exploitable with one person instead of two? Jason Cobb On 7/18/19 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: 8210 Jason Cobb 2.5 Single-party Contracts AGAINST. Makes some scams too easy.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
The latter - a one-person contract is basically (in past) a huge ticket to all kinds of nonsense (including, yes, a scam that would be possible now), requiring a second person really tends to damp that sort of thing out. -G. On 7/18/2019 6:48 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: Forgive me, but how much can you actually do if you are the only person party to a contract, unless there's a pre-existing rules bug? Or is the issue just that it would make such a bug exploitable with one person instead of two? Jason Cobb On 7/18/19 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: 8210 Jason Cobb 2.5 Single-party Contracts AGAINST. Makes some scams too easy.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
On Jul 18, 2019, at 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2 > AGAINST. Very much not keen on timeline control given the > sensitivity of our game to time (one of the ways to kill the > game entirely with a lower-powered rule, potentially). I forget how I voted on this, but it worried me too. I couldn't find any bugs in the proposal, but it was complicated enough that it made me think there could be unanticipated results.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
Forgive me, but how much can you actually do if you are the only person party to a contract, unless there's a pre-existing rules bug? Or is the issue just that it would make such a bug exploitable with one person instead of two? Jason Cobb On 7/18/19 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: 8210 Jason Cobb 2.5 Single-party Contracts AGAINST. Makes some scams too easy.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
(Again, still new at assessor) I'm going to act under the assumption that this evaluates to FOR, since basically everything has the reflexive property on equality. If this is incorrect, just tell me, and I'll fix it. Jason Cobb On 7/18/19 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: 8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect CONDITIONAL: FOR if X=X, AGAINST otherwise.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 10:41 PM Rebecca wrote: > you absolutely can! we are not the typo police. Not that it matters, but it probably wasn't a typo. CFJ 1885 (called 26 Jan 2008): "AGAINT" is a variant spelling of "AGAINST", not a customary synonym for "FOR", despite its former private usage with the latter meaning.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
Sorry, still new at Assessor :), I'll fix that in my records. Jason Cobb On 7/18/19 1:40 AM, Rebecca wrote: you absolutely can! we are not the typo police. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:52 PM Jason Cobb wrote: I'm not sure that I can count this as AGAINST. You might want to withdraw and resubmit the ballot. Jason Cobb On 7/18/19 12:31 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: 8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect AGAINT
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
you absolutely can! we are not the typo police. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:52 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I'm not sure that I can count this as AGAINST. You might want to > withdraw and resubmit the ballot. > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/18/19 12:31 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: > >> 8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect > > AGAINT > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
I'm not sure that I can count this as AGAINST. You might want to withdraw and resubmit the ballot. Jason Cobb On 7/18/19 12:31 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: 8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect AGAINT
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:28 AM nch wrote: > On 7/16/19 5:41 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > Votes are below. > > > > Sorry if someone already raised this specifically, but CoE on the promotor > > distribution: If 8207 is a proposal at all, then it does have an AI per > > Rule 1950: "Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran > > decisions and proposals. ... Adoption index is an essential parameter of > > an Agoran decision if that decision has an adoption index." > > > The proposal and the decision on the proposal are separate things. That > rule only states that AI is essential for the decision. Does the decision correctly identify the "matter to be decided" (R107) if it lists a proposal that doesn't exist? (I.E. a proposal listed with the wrong AI is not the "matter to be decided" because such a proposal doesn't exist). In any case, I think the Proposal can no longer have as an AI, I think Proposal 8200 took away as a possible value, so it's at its new default (1.0). I originally thought something more interesting than that would happen when 8200 was adopted (which is why I kept the proposal in the Pool) but I misread the Rules precedence order on something, so it's just a boring AI-1 proposal now, I think.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
On 7/16/19 5:41 AM, D. Margaux wrote: Votes are below. Sorry if someone already raised this specifically, but CoE on the promotor distribution: If 8207 is a proposal at all, then it does have an AI per Rule 1950: "Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran decisions and proposals. ... Adoption index is an essential parameter of an Agoran decision if that decision has an adoption index." The proposal and the decision on the proposal are separate things. That rule only states that AI is essential for the decision.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
I don't think your votes on behalf of Halian work, since you haven't fulfilled this condition from Rule 683: 3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided. That is, you haven't stated which decisions you want Halian to vote on. Jason Cobb On 7/16/19 9:19 AM, Rebecca wrote: I vote as follows and act on Halian's behalf to make em vote to endorse R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
I note that this is not a valid vote, so you do not submit a ballot on 8207. Jason Cobb On 7/16/19 5:41 AM, D. Margaux wrote: 8207 G. [1] no power is all powerful TANGELO
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
NttPF.
Jason Cobb
On 7/16/19 7:04 AM, Rebecca wrote:
I vote as follows and act on Halian's behalf to make em vote to endorse R.
Lee
8188A G. 3.0 Blanket Denial
FOR
8189A Jason Cobb 1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
FOR
8190A G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
FOR
8191A R. Lee 1.1 Spaceships
FOR
8192A G. 1.0 auctions have fees
FOR
8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2
PRESENT
8202 Jason Cobb 1.7 Police Power
FOR
8203 Jason Cobb 2.0 Fixing Summary Judgement
FOR
8204 R. Lee 1.0 SMH @ Herald
FOR
8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect
FOR
8206 Jason Cobb 2.0 Rule 2472 Simplification
PRESENT
8207 G. [1] no power is all powerful
PRESENT
8208 Jason Cobb, [2]3.0 Regulated actions reform (v2)
AGAINST
8209 D Margaux, [3] 2.0 AFK Reform Act v1.1
FOR, hope this passes, it would be 10/10
8210 Jason Cobb 2.5 Single-party Contracts
AGAINST
8211 G. 3.0 Law School
FOR
8212 Jason Cobb 3.0 Rule Recreation Reversal
FOR
8213 nch1.0 Space Fixes
FOR
8214 nch1.0 Space Isn't Linear
FOR, I love this
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:41 PM D. Margaux wrote:
Votes are below.
Sorry if someone already raised this specifically, but CoE on the promotor
distribution: If 8207 is a proposal at all, then it does have an AI per
Rule 1950: "Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
decisions and proposals. ... Adoption index is an essential parameter of
an Agoran decision if that decision has an adoption index."
In the votes below, "FOR UNLESS" is a shorthand for "conditional vote FOR,
unless a line item veto has been exercised for this proposal, in which case
AGAINST."
I vote as follows:
On Jul 15, 2019, at 8:32 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).
ID Author(s) AITitle
---
8188A G. 3.0 Blanket Denial
FOR UNLESS
8189A Jason Cobb 1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
FOR UNLESS
8190A G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
FOR UNLESS
8191A R. Lee 1.1 Spaceships
FOR UNLESS
8192A G. 1.0 auctions have fees
FOR UNLESS
8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2
FOR UNLESS
8202 Jason Cobb 1.7 Police Power
FOR UNLESS
8203 Jason Cobb 2.0 Fixing Summary Judgement
PRESENT
8204 R. Lee 1.0 SMH @ Herald
FOR UNLESS
8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect
FOR UNLESS
8206 Jason Cobb 2.0 Rule 2472 Simplification
AGAINST
If I recall correctly, per a CFJ that defeated a scam I ran, the wording
here matters because the Speaker CAN delay a "with Notice" action by
objecting, but e CANNOT delay an action that doesn't use the Agoran
Satisfaction method.
8207 G. [1] no power is all powerful
TANGELO
8208 Jason Cobb, [2]3.0 Regulated actions reform (v2)
PRESENT
I'm sure this is an excellent proposal, but it's 6:30 am my local time,
and I'm too sleepy to read it carefully enough to feel comfortable voting
on it.
8209 D Margaux, [3] 2.0 AFK Reform Act v1.1
FOR UNLESS
8210 Jason Cobb 2.5 Single-party Contracts
FOR UNLESS
I think this could actually be a fun new mechanic.
8211 G. 3.0 Law School
FOR UNLESS
8212 Jason Cobb 3.0 Rule Recreation Reversal
PRESENT
Havent been following the background on this proposal.
8213 nch1.0 Space Fixes
FOR UNLESS
8214 nch1.0 Space Isn't Linear
FOR UNLESS
//
ID: 8188
Title: Blanket Denial
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
do one of the following in a timely fashion:
with
do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
that clearly cites the claim of error:
//
ID: 8189
Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
Replace the text
The Referee CAN, subject to the
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
I vote as follows and act on Halian's behalf to make em vote to endorse R. Lee > 8188A G. 3.0 Blanket Denial FOR > 8189A Jason Cobb 1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2) FOR > 8190A G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards FOR > 8191A R. Lee 1.1 Spaceships FOR > 8192A G. 1.0 auctions have fees FOR > 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2 PRESENT > 8202 Jason Cobb 1.7 Police Power FOR > 8203 Jason Cobb 2.0 Fixing Summary Judgement FOR > 8204 R. Lee 1.0 SMH @ Herald FOR > 8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect FOR > 8206 Jason Cobb 2.0 Rule 2472 Simplification PRESENT > 8207 G. [1] no power is all powerful PRESENT > 8208 Jason Cobb, [2]3.0 Regulated actions reform (v2) AGAINST > 8209 D Margaux, [3] 2.0 AFK Reform Act v1.1 FOR, hope this passes, it would be 10/10 > 8210 Jason Cobb 2.5 Single-party Contracts AGAINST > 8211 G. 3.0 Law School FOR > 8212 Jason Cobb 3.0 Rule Recreation Reversal FOR > 8213 nch1.0 Space Fixes FOR > 8214 nch1.0 Space Isn't Linear FOR, I love this On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 8:41 PM D. Margaux wrote: > Votes are below. > > Sorry if someone already raised this specifically, but CoE on the promotor > distribution: If 8207 is a proposal at all, then it does have an AI per > Rule 1950: "Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran > decisions and proposals. ... Adoption index is an essential parameter of > an Agoran decision if that decision has an adoption index." > > In the votes below, "FOR UNLESS" is a shorthand for "conditional vote FOR, > unless a line item veto has been exercised for this proposal, in which case > AGAINST." > > I vote as follows: > > > On Jul 15, 2019, at 8:32 PM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid > > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > > conditional votes). > > > > ID Author(s) AITitle > > > --- > > 8188A G. 3.0 Blanket Denial > FOR UNLESS > > > 8189A Jason Cobb 1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2) > FOR UNLESS > > > 8190A G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards > FOR UNLESS > > > 8191A R. Lee 1.1 Spaceships > FOR UNLESS > > > 8192A G. 1.0 auctions have fees > FOR UNLESS > > > 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2 > FOR UNLESS > > > 8202 Jason Cobb 1.7 Police Power > FOR UNLESS > > > 8203 Jason Cobb 2.0 Fixing Summary Judgement > PRESENT > > > 8204 R. Lee 1.0 SMH @ Herald > FOR UNLESS > > > 8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect > FOR UNLESS > > > 8206 Jason Cobb 2.0 Rule 2472 Simplification > AGAINST > If I recall correctly, per a CFJ that defeated a scam I ran, the wording > here matters because the Speaker CAN delay a "with Notice" action by > objecting, but e CANNOT delay an action that doesn't use the Agoran > Satisfaction method. > > > > 8207 G. [1] no power is all powerful > TANGELO > > > 8208 Jason Cobb, [2]3.0 Regulated actions reform (v2) > PRESENT > I'm sure this is an excellent proposal, but it's 6:30 am my local time, > and I'm too sleepy to read it carefully enough to feel comfortable voting > on it. > > > 8209 D Margaux, [3] 2.0 AFK Reform Act v1.1 > FOR UNLESS > > > 8210 Jason Cobb 2.5 Single-party Contracts > FOR UNLESS > I think this could actually be a fun new mechanic. > > > 8211 G. 3.0 Law School > FOR UNLESS > > > 8212 Jason Cobb 3.0 Rule Recreation Reversal > PRESENT > Havent been following the background on this proposal. > > > 8213 nch1.0 Space Fixes > FOR UNLESS > > > 8214 nch1.0 Space Isn't Linear > FOR UNLESS > > > > > > // > > > ID: 8188 > > Title: Blanket Denial > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: G. > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing: > > do one of the following in a timely fashion: > > with > > do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement > > that clearly cites the claim of error: > > > > // > > ID: 8189 > >
