DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Gaelan Steele]

Given the amount of slang crap going around, you might want to fix your AGAINT

Gaelan

> On Feb 10, 2019, at 9:35 AM, Edward Murphy  wrote:
> 
> I vote as follows:
> 
> 8152 FOR
> 8153 FOR (inadvertent mistakes can be papered over by auto-ratification)
> 8154 AGAINT
> 8155 PRESENT
> 8156 FOR
> 8157 FOR
> 8158 AGAINST (if it somehow exists after all)
> 8159 FOR
> 8160 FOR
> 8161 FOR
> 8162 FOR
> 8163 FOR
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes & Stuff

[Josh T]

Yeah, that's the one. CB: you get yourself a freebie since someone else dug
it up for you.

天火狐

On 10 September 2017 at 20:12, VJ Rada  wrote:

> I cause 天火狐 using eir latest agency which I believe is 狐票店 but I make
> no promises, to vote in the ADoP and PM elections in this way ""I
> endorse the entity who has, between the period of the posting of this
> message and the tallying of the vote, transferred strictly the most
> value in Assets (assessed at the most recent market valuation of the
> Asset in Shinies available during vote tallying) to 天火狐; in the event
> of a tie or otherwise an inability to clearly determine such an
> entity, my vote is PRESENT.
>
> I transfer 天火狐; 1 shiny (going to 7?)
>
> --
> From V.J Rada
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Nic Evans]

I'm interpreting this as a conditional vote on 7849-7851, meaning it's a
Present on 7849. If this had been written as "In all agoran decisions,
currently up for vote, written by ais523:" then there'd be no vote on 7849.

(I'm clarifying my decisions because I'm expecting CoEs all over.)


On 05/09/17 22:38, Quazie wrote:
> In all agoran decisions currently up for vote:
>If that decision is about a proposal written by ais523:
>   I endorse ais523 on that agoran decision.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes, votes, votes...

[omd]

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
 I vote PRESENT on every proposal I haven't voted on yet, but CAN vote on.

I believe that's all proposals ever submitted that you haven't voted on.  HTH!

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
 I vote ENDORSE G. in all Agoran Decisions currently in their voting periods 
 (yes, even the non-proposal ones).

You might need to retract a previous vote before I buy that last bit ;).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Sean Hunt]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
 I vote ENDORSE G. in all Agoran Decisions currently in their voting periods 
 (yes, even the non-proposal ones).

 You might need to retract a previous vote before I buy that last bit ;).

Well, I voted. The votes may not be that useful, though ;)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013, omd wrote:
 On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
  7386  2.0  Ordinary  scshunt  Eraser
  FOR.  Sorry Bayes, the small positive you contribute isn't worth the
  large negatives brought by the rest of the golems.
 
 For the record, just the other day I was planning to make a new Bayes
 with a (slightly) more sophisticated algorithm, and I think that now
 that we're finally allowing drastically unfair voting on ordinary
 proposals and a corresponding way to give second-class persons
 meaningful voting power,

The most someone can get is just under 3xbase, I'm not sure this really
that unfair compared to a lot of past systems?  Or am I missing 
something.  -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[omd]

On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 The most someone can get is just under 3xbase, I'm not sure this really
 that unfair compared to a lot of past systems?  Or am I missing
 something.  -G.

Oops, I forgot that the default limit is now 4...

In general I think the limit should be increased, because anyone can
reset the entire system by spending 1 VC (and every newbie or person
with the default VVLOP has an incentive to do so, since it doesn't
hurt em) seems somewhat pointless.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013, omd wrote:
 On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
  The most someone can get is just under 3xbase, I'm not sure this really
  that unfair compared to a lot of past systems?  Or am I missing
  something.  -G.
 
 Oops, I forgot that the default limit is now 4...
 
 In general I think the limit should be increased, because anyone can
 reset the entire system by spending 1 VC (and every newbie or person
 with the default VVLOP has an incentive to do so, since it doesn't
 hurt em) seems somewhat pointless.

I, too, am wondering if the reset mechanism is correctly balanced with the
VC supply.  -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[omd]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 7386  2.0  Ordinary  scshunt  Eraser
 FOR.  Sorry Bayes, the small positive you contribute isn't worth the
 large negatives brought by the rest of the golems.

For the record, just the other day I was planning to make a new Bayes
with a (slightly) more sophisticated algorithm, and I think that now
that we're finally allowing drastically unfair voting on ordinary
proposals and a corresponding way to give second-class persons
meaningful voting power, it might not be the best to remove them
entirely, which is why I voted against the one to repeal Public
Agreements (also because scshunt's going to get a ridiculous number of
VCs, as opposed to a slightly less ridiculous number of VCs if all
these repeals were in a single proposal).  However, assuming these all
pass, I can always have em vote on my behalf, which would be cheaper
anyway (since only first-class persons are eligible for single-VC
voting limit increases).

DIS: Re: BUS: votes

[Ed Murphy]

G. wrote:


[I think I'm just outside the voting period unless there's been
apathy.  Nonetheless].


You are, and there hasn't been.

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, omd wrote:
 On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
  On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote:
  I vote FOR all decisions to adopt proposals currently in their voting 
  periods.
 
  I retract my previous votes on all decisions with ongoing voting periods, 
  and
  vote 'denounce omd' on each and every agoran decision currently in its 
  voting
  period.  -G.
 
 I retract my previous votes on all decisions with ongoing voting
 periods, and vote 'endorse G.' on each and every agoran decision
 currently in its voting period.
 
 ;p

Oh, that's boring, just cancels it all out to present... -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ed Murphy]

comex wrote:

 On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 To remove ambiguity, I vote FOR each Agoran Decision for which I have not
 cast a vote.
 
 Me too.

For 6682-85, I already had votes recorded for both of you:

  Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:17:39 -0600 (yoyo) coppro F A A A
  Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:22:30 -0600 (a-b)  coppro change all to F

  Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:16:25 -0400 (yoyo) comex  A F F F

For 6686-94, coppro's above-quoted message cast votes, while comex's
was a no-op as e had already voted F on all of them.

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Sgeo]

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 11:20 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 To remove ambiguity, I vote FOR each Agoran Decision for which I have not
 cast a vote.

 Me too.


What's going on?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 17:21 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
 ais523 wrote:
 
  The bug is in rule 754, which doesn't define
  announcement anywhere in the published versions of the FLR or SLR for
  months.
 
 Rule 478, last paragraph.

Nope, it defines action by announcement in terms of announcements.
(comex has now re-added the accidentally dropped penultimate paragraph,
which defined announcements.) And I meant 478, just said 754 by mistake
and only just noticed.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 I vote FOR Proposal 6165 and AGAINST proposal 6166 (not because of lack of
 trust of comex-as-rulekeepor, but because I never thought ruleset 
 ratification 
 was a good idea to begin with...ratify everything else but let the rules be 
 corrected when need be).  -Goethe

Well, the problem is that a long-standing rules problem may break the
rest of ratification. (For instance, if the rules don't say what we
think they do, the ratification rules may be completely broken.) That
way, we could end up with a really large massive gamestate recalculation
unless the rules are ratified, preferably without dependencies on
anything but the proposal rules.

On the other hand, I don't really like ratifying the rules while there
are so many scam warnings in them...

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
 On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 I vote FOR Proposal 6165 and AGAINST proposal 6166 (not because of lack of
 trust of comex-as-rulekeepor, but because I never thought ruleset 
 ratification
 was a good idea to begin with...ratify everything else but let the rules be
 corrected when need be).  -Goethe

 Well, the problem is that a long-standing rules problem may break the
 rest of ratification. (For instance, if the rules don't say what we
 think they do, the ratification rules may be completely broken.) That
 way, we could end up with a really large massive gamestate recalculation
 unless the rules are ratified, preferably without dependencies on
 anything but the proposal rules.

I understand the tradeoff, I just prefer to ratify change events (e.g.
proposals) rather than the state for the ruleset in particular.  Unlike
those who like hard-resets every time there's uncertainty (B?  Or at
least my impression of B) I don't mind some (reasonably-limited)
reconstruction work, those are at least interesting debates as far as
process goes.

I think a good compromise is ~annually, at a time when there's less
controversy; the last one was Sept 08 and (as you say) right now we're 
in a relatively confused period.  So, not now.

-Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 10:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 I understand the tradeoff, I just prefer to ratify change events (e.g.
 proposals) rather than the state for the ruleset in particular.  Unlike
 those who like hard-resets every time there's uncertainty (B?  Or at
 least my impression of B) I don't mind some (reasonably-limited)
 reconstruction work, those are at least interesting debates as far as
 process goes.
 
 I think a good compromise is ~annually, at a time when there's less
 controversy; the last one was Sept 08 and (as you say) right now we're 
 in a relatively confused period.  So, not now.

B's trouble is that massive gamestate recalculation is kind-of common
there, and hard resets aren't nearly common enough. Recently, we
actually discovered that nothing at all had happened since the last hard
reset (due to various bugs), and we hard-reset again to make sure
(including the ratification of absolutely everything in the gamestate,
rare in any nomic, including B).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
 B's trouble is that massive gamestate recalculation is kind-of common
 there, and hard resets aren't nearly common enough. Recently, we
 actually discovered that nothing at all had happened since the last hard
 reset (due to various bugs), and we hard-reset again to make sure
 (including the ratification of absolutely everything in the gamestate,
 rare in any nomic, including B).

Agora has gone _ _ 1 8 6 _ days without a ruleset ratification.
Safety first!

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
 The bug is in rule 754, which doesn't define
 announcement anywhere in the published versions of the FLR or SLR for
 months. 

Actually, we've got a judicial precedent (I'll look up the number later
unless someone else does) that a common-language definition of 
announcement is something said in public and that R478 defines what 
fora are public.  So, even if the bug existed, I think we'd all be just 
fine -goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 11:31 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
  The bug is in rule 754, which doesn't define
  announcement anywhere in the published versions of the FLR or SLR for
  months. 
 
 Actually, we've got a judicial precedent (I'll look up the number later
 unless someone else does) that a common-language definition of 
 announcement is something said in public and that R478 defines what 
 fora are public.  So, even if the bug existed, I think we'd all be just 
 fine -goethe

I don't think redefining words in RL definitions works. (I think that
the announcement on BlogNomic, for instance, was sufficiently public -
after all, it even found its way to Agora pretty quickly - and that
public in the natural English definition of announcement would use the
natural English definition of public, not the Agoran definition.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Sean Hunt]

Sean Hunt wrote:
 I admit that I knew of this too.
 
 I retract any votes I submitted for proposal 6166 and vote AGAINST it.

TtttPF.

Also, perhaps we should allow the Assessor to end a voting period early
if there is a certain amount of positive votes (say, VI twice the AI and
at least half of all active players voting).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 Also, perhaps we should allow the Assessor to end a voting period early
 if there is a certain amount of positive votes (say, VI twice the AI and
 at least half of all active players voting).

Tweaks? (Allow arbitrary changes to the gamestate without objection)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 14:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
  Also, perhaps we should allow the Assessor to end a voting period early
  if there is a certain amount of positive votes (say, VI twice the AI and
  at least half of all active players voting).
 
 Tweaks? (Allow arbitrary changes to the gamestate without objection)

Agora used to have a rule like that, but it was repealed (I can't
remember why, but there was a good reason).

Personally, I think it should be not only without objection, but require
a large amount of support.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Sean Hunt]

Alex Smith wrote:
 On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 14:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 Also, perhaps we should allow the Assessor to end a voting period early
 if there is a certain amount of positive votes (say, VI twice the AI and
 at least half of all active players voting).
 Tweaks? (Allow arbitrary changes to the gamestate without objection)
 
 Agora used to have a rule like that, but it was repealed (I can't
 remember why, but there was a good reason).
 
 Personally, I think it should be not only without objection, but require
 a large amount of support.

Proto-rule:
{A player may cause instant adoption of a proposal that has not yet been
voted on with A*P/(A+1) support, rounded down to the nearest integer,
where A is the proposal's adoption index and P is, if there is an
ongoing vote on the proposal, the number of eligible first-class voters,
otherwise the number of active first-class players. There is no minimum
time to cause instant adoption of a proposal; it may be performed as
soon as sufficient support is garnered. This takes precedence over rule
1728, section b).

When a proposal is instantly adopted, it is removed from the Proposal
Pool, any Agora Decisions on whether to adopt it conclude with no
result, and it takes effect. The Assessor SHOULD make note of the
effects of the instant adoption, but failure to do so does not prevent
the instant adoption from taking effect.}

Some rules may need amendment to get the precedence right.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[comex]

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 soon as sufficient support is garnered. This takes precedence over rule
 1728, section b).

That section only applies for actions to be performed without objections.

 When a proposal is instantly adopted, it is removed from the Proposal
 Pool, any Agora Decisions on whether to adopt it conclude with no
 result,

and its power is set to its AI...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:

 On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 11:31 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
 The bug is in rule 754, which doesn't define
 announcement anywhere in the published versions of the FLR or SLR for
 months.

 Actually, we've got a judicial precedent (I'll look up the number later
 unless someone else does) that a common-language definition of
 announcement is something said in public and that R478 defines what
 fora are public.  So, even if the bug existed, I think we'd all be just
 fine -goethe

 I don't think redefining words in RL definitions works. (I think that
 the announcement on BlogNomic, for instance, was sufficiently public -
 after all, it even found its way to Agora pretty quickly - and that
 public in the natural English definition of announcement would use the
 natural English definition of public, not the Agoran definition.)

Nonsense.  Public: relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole 
area of a nation or state... relating to, or being in the service of the 
community or nation ... accessible to or shared by all members OF THE
COMMUNITY (emphasis mine).

Public, within the common definition, can be specific to a *particular* 
community and stay within the common definition.  Public has a strong 
legal connotation in most jurisdictions (e.g. search and seizure rights) 
as well as in its roots (public is generally covers 'legal' connotations 
of the Latin 'populus'), thus we should look to legal definitions.  And, 
while many areas are accessible to all of us practically, only the public 
fora are prima facie assumed to be accessible to all of us *legally*.

In fact, all locations: internet addresses, physical ones, rooftops, have 
accessibility (and therefore publicity) that ultimately devolves to some 
controlling jurisdiction.  Therefore, no public place is guaranteed 
to have legal publicity for all of us (as we have an international
membership), leaving us only the ones we define for ourselves, using (were 
the text you talk about indeed missing) a combination of R478 and the good 
of the game to decide how to define our community's (common) definition of 
public.

-Goethe

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ed Murphy]

ais523 wrote:

 The bug is in rule 754, which doesn't define
 announcement anywhere in the published versions of the FLR or SLR for
 months.

Rule 478, last paragraph.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ed Murphy]

ais523 wrote:

 On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 14:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 Also, perhaps we should allow the Assessor to end a voting period early
 if there is a certain amount of positive votes (say, VI twice the AI and
 at least half of all active players voting).
 Tweaks? (Allow arbitrary changes to the gamestate without objection)
 
 Agora used to have a rule like that, but it was repealed (I can't
 remember why, but there was a good reason).

IIRC it was repealed after then-Distributor Steve's Spam Scam (e had a
confederate forward a spam message to the list, configured the mail
server to hold it, inserted a statement of intent about 200 lines down,
then released the hold).  It was ruled not to work (due to unclear
communication), but the point was made.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, comex wrote:

 Unfortunately, I'm not sure that I can unilaterally avoid this sort of
 error in the future.  If someone else can make that guarantee, let
 them be Rulekeepor; otherwise, Goethe, there is always the chance of
 an accidental, hard-to-catch difference between the ratified voting
 results and the published ruleset.  Proposals that explicitly mention
 rule text might fail because the text is different; proposals that
 number paragraphs might delete important material.  Of course, I'll
 always try my utmost to ensure the correctness of the ruleset, but I'm
 not convinced that ratification is such a bad idea. 

I know there's always a chance of error.  This is a perfect example,
though, where ratifying an incorrect ruleset would clearly have been
the *wrong* choice.   At the moment, all we have is Rulekeepor left
out some text accidentally... the text is really still in there.  If
we'd have ratified it in, we would have ratified an incorrect state
of the ruleset with a (possibly serious) bug.  

And if the bug was due to the (true) accidental action of a proposal,
that's everyone's fault and Agora is about living with those.  What
does our Hero say, the only cure for a bad proposal is a negative
vote?

I *do* think if you'd mentioned it publicly when you first noticed the 
error, we would have all gone back and looked to trace the error and
resolved it almost immediately.

I think the proposal process in combination with FLR annotations is 
still pretty easy to use to trace diffs.  I'd rather have each ruleset
publication have a slight error from the true state then reconstruct
the true state from proposals whenever an error is suspected, then
actually set one of the mistaken texts as the true state too often.

-Goethe

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ed Murphy]

coppro wrote:

 6147: FOR

The DB says you previously voted AGAINST this, thus this vote is
ineffective for being over your voting limit.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
 On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 5823 D 1 2.0 rootSecure contract adjustments
 AGAINST.  It breaks Equity.

One of the main ways equity works is by allowing direct holdings adjustments
of contract-governed assets.  Equity is only power 1.7.  -Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ian Kelly]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
 On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 5823 D 1 2.0 rootSecure contract adjustments
 AGAINST.  It breaks Equity.

 One of the main ways equity works is by allowing direct holdings adjustments
 of contract-governed assets.  Equity is only power 1.7.  -Goethe

What in R2169 authorizes that?  The only way it can be construed as
modifying aspects of the original contract is by requiring the parties
to conduct the change or to agree to it per R2198.  R2198 is already
power 2, so that mechanism is untouched by this proposal.

-root

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ed Murphy]

comex wrote:

 On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 5823 D 1 2.0 rootSecure contract adjustments
 AGAINST.  It breaks Equity.
 In that case I retract my votes and vote FOR.

You voted FOR the first time, so this is effectively a no-op.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
 On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 One of the main ways equity works is by allowing direct holdings adjustments
 of contract-governed assets.  Equity is only power 1.7.  -Goethe

 What in R2169 authorizes that?  The only way it can be construed as
 modifying aspects of the original contract is by requiring the parties
 to conduct the change or to agree to it per R2198.  R2198 is already
 power 2, so that mechanism is untouched by this proposal.

Sorry, you're right, that aspect was taken out when we rewrote equity
to no longer be its own contract or a contract amendment.  -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Elliott Hird]

On 13 Oct 2008, at 14:15, Benjamin Schultz wrote:


5765 O 1 1.0 Wooble  none
1 x FOR, 1 x AGAINST


Well, it's readable now. :P (I'm sure your mailer has a reply  
button, though,

that'd also handle quoting for you...)

--
ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Benjamin Schultz]

On Oct 13, 2008, at 9:20 AM, Elliott Hird wrote:


On 13 Oct 2008, at 14:15, Benjamin Schultz wrote:


5765 O 1 1.0 Wooble  none
1 x FOR, 1 x AGAINST


Well, it's readable now. :P (I'm sure your mailer has a reply  
button, though,

that'd also handle quoting for you...)


My reader might also have rot-13.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[ehird]

On 10 Oct 2008, at 03:42, Benjamin Schultz wrote:


On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:35 PM, comex wrote:

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Benjamin Schultz  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

(list of numbers which provides absolutely no context, forcing me to
go back to the relevant distributions to find out what's being voted
on)


*sigh*.



What, you don't have numerical indices?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr



He's talking about, you know... reading your votes.

--
ehird

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Benjamin Schultz]

On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:35 PM, comex wrote:

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Benjamin Schultz  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

(list of numbers which provides absolutely no context, forcing me to
go back to the relevant distributions to find out what's being voted
on)


*sigh*.



What, you don't have numerical indices?
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[ehird]

On 7 Oct 2008, at 23:35, comex wrote:

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Benjamin Schultz  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

(list of numbers which provides absolutely no context, forcing me to
go back to the relevant distributions to find out what's being voted
on)


*sigh*.



Yeah, we got Bayes to supply context and reply to the thread, could  
you do too?


--
ehird

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes for Ambassador and Herald

[Josiah Worcester]

On 12:35 Sun 11 May , Alexander Smith wrote:
 For Ambassador, I vote COMEX.
 For Herald, I vote IAMMARS.
 -- 
 ais523

For both, I don't care, for I intend to run for the positions
again. My soon-to-be-campaign speech:

   Rather than neglect my duties, I went on hold. Rather than
   leave all of Agora hanging, I informed all of you why I could
   not continue to be in my position. I'm back, and would like
   those positions back.

   The current format of the Heraldry is the result of a long
   series of labors by myself; this is something good I brought to
   Agora.

   When I was Ambassador, I actually posted my report monthly;
   this is something that no Ambassador in recent memory actually
   did.

Sincerely,
Pikhq, Agoran Spy and Minister Without Portfolio.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes for Ambassador and Herald

[Ed Murphy]

pikhq wrote:

When I was Ambassador, I actually posted my report monthly;
this is something that no Ambassador in recent memory actually
did.

You still are Ambassador, and you still haven't addressed the
unfulfilled duties referenced by CFJs 1918-19.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes for Ambassador and Herald

[Josiah Worcester]

On 08:09 Sun 11 May , Ed Murphy wrote:
 pikhq wrote:
 
 When I was Ambassador, I actually posted my report monthly;
 this is something that no Ambassador in recent memory actually
 did.
 
 You still are Ambassador, and you still haven't addressed the
 unfulfilled duties referenced by CFJs 1918-19.
 

I am? I would've *thought* somebody would've taken over that by
now. . . And what unfulfilled duties are those?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes for Ambassador and Herald

[Iammars]

Nomic Wiki Page updating

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Josiah Worcester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On 08:09 Sun 11 May , Ed Murphy wrote:
 pikhq wrote:

 When I was Ambassador, I actually posted my report monthly;
 this is something that no Ambassador in recent memory actually
 did.

 You still are Ambassador, and you still haven't addressed the
 unfulfilled duties referenced by CFJs 1918-19.


 I am? I would've *thought* somebody would've taken over that by
 now. . . And what unfulfilled duties are those?




-- 
-Iammars
www.jmcteague.com

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ed Murphy]

Goethe wrote:


On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:

All AGAINST votes in this message are cast only on the condition that
the proposal in question would meet quorum even if I didn't vote on it.


Interesting.  Technically, this isn't known within the voting period
but only at the endpoint.  R2127 probably doesn't let it work.  You can
probably get around it by something trivial like if quorum hasn't been
met 10^-14 seconds before the end of voting period.  -Goethe


The determination doesn't need to be within the voting period, only the
published information on which it is based.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
 Goethe wrote:
 On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
 All AGAINST votes in this message are cast only on the condition that
 the proposal in question would meet quorum even if I didn't vote on it.
 
 Interesting.  Technically, this isn't known within the voting period
 but only at the endpoint.  R2127 probably doesn't let it work.  You can
 probably get around it by something trivial like if quorum hasn't been
 met 10^-14 seconds before the end of voting period.  -Goethe

 The determination doesn't need to be within the voting period, only the
 published information on which it is based.

But you can't figure out if the proposal would meet quorum until the moment
after the voting period has ended.  -Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ed Murphy]

Goethe wrote:


On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:

Goethe wrote:

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:

All AGAINST votes in this message are cast only on the condition that
the proposal in question would meet quorum even if I didn't vote on it.

Interesting.  Technically, this isn't known within the voting period
but only at the endpoint.  R2127 probably doesn't let it work.  You can
probably get around it by something trivial like if quorum hasn't been
met 10^-14 seconds before the end of voting period.  -Goethe

The determination doesn't need to be within the voting period, only the
published information on which it is based.


But you can't figure out if the proposal would meet quorum until the moment
after the voting period has ended.  -Goethe


I don't understand how this in any way acknowledges my previous
comment on the matter.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
 But you can't figure out if the proposal would meet quorum until the 
 moment after the voting period has ended.  -Goethe

 I don't understand how this in any way acknowledges my previous
 comment on the matter.

Oh I see what you're saying, you're right.  I wonder what happens if 
multiple people vote like that (e.g. enough to cross the quorum line 
together but not individually).  -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
 All AGAINST votes in this message are cast only on the condition that
 the proposal in question would meet quorum even if I didn't vote on it.

Interesting.  Technically, this isn't known within the voting period
but only at the endpoint.  R2127 probably doesn't let it work.  You can
probably get around it by something trivial like if quorum hasn't been
met 10^-14 seconds before the end of voting period.  -Goethe

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Zefram]

Ed Murphy wrote:
5295 AGAINST (the pool should remain part of the report)

Why?  The promotor is obliged to distribute everything in the pool each
week, so separate reporting of the pool is redundant.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ed Murphy]

Zefram wrote:


Ed Murphy wrote:

5295 AGAINST (the pool should remain part of the report)


Why?  The promotor is obliged to distribute everything in the pool each
week, so separate reporting of the pool is redundant.


A few different reasons.  Retaining the obligation increases the
Promotor's incentive to distribute on time (less work if you do,
more to be punished for if you don't) without not requiring any
significant additional effort (provided that you do distribute on
time, a weekly the pool is empty suffices).  Also, if we ever
decide to make it more challenging to get proposals distributed,
we don't have to remember to re-add the reporting requirement.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ed Murphy]

root wrote:


On 11/7/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

5287 AGAINST (these are privileges, not duties)

The speaker's assignment of the privileges is a duty.


I would support that change if it were proposed separately.  Also,
when it comes time to revoke MwP from someone, non-players (if any)
should be targeted (in some order) before the Speaker.


5291 AGAINST (I don't see the need)

The need is that the paragraph has been misinterpreted more than once
recently.  If the proposal were disinterested, would you vote for it?


Not sure.  Would you see any problems with To perform an action 'by
announcement' is to announce that one performs it?

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ian Kelly]

On 11/7/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 5287 AGAINST (these are privileges, not duties)
The speaker's assignment of the privileges is a duty.

 5291 AGAINST (I don't see the need)
The need is that the paragraph has been misinterpreted more than once
recently.  If the proposal were disinterested, would you vote for it?

-root

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Zefram]

Ed Murphy wrote:
Not sure.  Would you see any problems with To perform an action 'by
announcement' is to announce that one performs it?

I see a problem with it.  It implies that a rule that says the speaker
CAN doff eir hat by announcement are claiming to control the POSSIBILITY
of the speaker announcing I doff my hat.  The announcement must be
conceptually distinct from the action that it might achieve.

-zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Josiah Worcester]

On Saturday 27 October 2007 02:03:51 Zefram wrote:
 Ed Murphy wrote:
 5261 AGAINST x 5
 5262 PRESENT
 5263 AGAINST
 5264 AGAINST x 5
 5265 AGAINST
 5266 AGAINST
 5267 AGAINST
 5268 AGAINST
 
 You're not an eligible voter on any of these.
 
 -zefram
 

He registered 5 minutes previous, making him a first-class player, and 
therefore an eligible voter.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Zefram]

Josiah Worcester wrote:
He registered 5 minutes previous, making him a first-class player, and 
therefore an eligible voter.

R1950:

  The eligible voters on a democratic proposal are those entities
  that were active first-class players at the start of its voting
  period.

R2156:

  The eligible voters on an ordinary proposal are those entities
  that were active players at the start of its voting period.

-zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Zefram]

Ed Murphy wrote:
5171 AGAINST (invisible F)

Ah, you're in the unless == iff not camp too?  Curious.  I had
no idea that interpretation of unless existed in formal logic.
I've always used it to mean if not.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Peekee]

I agree with zefram, so do other people.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Formal_Logic/Sentential_Logic/Translations#Unless

x unless y = if (not y) then x = x or y

if (not y) then x follows.
if y then x may or may not be true.


I am happy unless it rains.

does this mean it is impossible for me to be happy when it is raining?






Quoting Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


Ed Murphy wrote:

5171 AGAINST (invisible F)


Ah, you're in the unless == iff not camp too?  Curious.  I had
no idea that interpretation of unless existed in formal logic.
I've always used it to mean if not.

-zefram





--
Peekee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Zefram]

Peekee wrote:
I am happy unless it rains.

does this mean it is impossible for me to be happy when it is raining?

Another example to ponder:

  Murphy CANNOT spend blue VCs UNLESS e is holding a strawberry.

Would that mean that e CAN spend blue VCs in all cases if e is holding
a strawberry?  Even if e has no other VCs to spend with eir blue VC?

I also note the usage of unless in the present MMI:

  4. CAN X ONLY IF Y:  Equivalent to CANNOT X unless Y.

This generalises to

  x ONLY IF y == not-x unless y

The usual logical meaning of only if is an argument-reversed if, thus

  x ONLY IF y == y IF x == not-x IF not-y

which certainly looks like unless means if not rather than iff not.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ed Murphy]

Zefram wrote:


Ed Murphy wrote:

5171 AGAINST (invisible F)


Ah, you're in the unless == iff not camp too?  Curious.  I had
no idea that interpretation of unless existed in formal logic.
I've always used it to mean if not.


I'm undecided.  I think the matter warrants further discussion.

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Zefram]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5124 AGAINST

What's the problem with proper disinterest?  Having the penalty apply
to disinterested proposals provides a perverse incentive for people
to vote on disinterested proposals contrary to their actual opinion of
the proposal.  That's what disinterest is meant to avoid.

5130 AGAINST

Yay, sanity.  I was getting worried about this one, on the voting so far.
I keep having thoughts that voting FOR a really destructive proposal,
such as (arguably) this or the repeal-all-the-rules proposal a while ago,
ought to be punishable as treason.  But that would be undemocratic.

5133 FOR (may as well repeal Rule 103, then; what about Rule 402?)

Heh.  Even without this proposal, we certainly don't need there to always
be a speaker.  It's just not a critical position any more.  So I'd be up
for repealing rule 103.  But not 402 (and thus the office altogether):
I'd like to legislate the speaker as a (non-executive) head of state,
with a symbolic role in foreign relations.  The overall process resembles
the way kings in many countries have lost their actual power and become
figureheads with a great historical flavour.  Proto soon.

5136 FOR (preserves game custom that actions are possible unless
   stated as impossible, and [Peekee notwithstanding] permissible
   unless stated as impermissible)

I'm surprised by the virulence of the anti-MMI faction.  The
arguments for the rules to remain unclear remind me of some of the
anti-industrialisation protests of the 19th century, or the King James
Only movement in Christian theology.

5137 FOR

I'm even more surprised that the anti-MMI voters object to greater
explication in an already-MMIed rule.

5138 FOR

After I submitted this, I recalled (to my embarrassment) that some
months ago I described Support Democracy as a temporary provision.
It's only there to stop ladder scams.  But we haven't done much about
ladder scams since then, and on reflection Support Democracy *is*
a more democratic version of the pre-existing veto.  Roll on the day
when we don't need *any* veto provision.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: votes on Proposals 4958-4969

[Benjamin Schultz]

On May 10, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Zefram wrote:


Benjamin Schultz wrote:

I like this phrasing.  Any comments, Zefram, on the phrase widely
spoken Human language?


It's woolly.  Pick a specific minimum number of native speakers and
then we'll be getting into feasible territory.  Wikipedia lists 35
languages with more than 30 million native speakers, which already
makes it a time-consuming research project, so I suggest picking a  
much

higher number.  There's still the problem of varying transliterations
into Latin script (the most popular language is Mandarin, of course),
but transliterations are fairly well established for the very popular
languages and there are a limited number of popular transliterations.


I'd be willing to limit it to the top 100 languages listed on  
Wikipedia, but that rules out Danish and Finnish at 101 and 102  
respectively.  The list also explicitly says it counts major dialects  
separately.



You also still need to decide which senses of the English word bear
you want to translate.

-zefram


As a noun, as a four-footed mammal typically seen in woodland terrain  
and with a literary propensity for hunny.

-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: votes on Proposals 4958-4969

[Benjamin Schultz]

On May 9, 2007, at 6:35 PM, Roger Hicks wrote:

Perhaps widely spoken human language or commonly used human  
language? I think both of those wordings would eliminate I just  
made up a language where the name of each player translates to  
Bear. At least it should hold up under CfJ


I like this phrasing.  Any comments, Zefram, on the phrase widely  
spoken Human language?

-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: votes on Proposals 4958-4969

[Zefram]

Benjamin Schultz wrote:
I like this phrasing.  Any comments, Zefram, on the phrase widely  
spoken Human language?

It's woolly.  Pick a specific minimum number of native speakers and
then we'll be getting into feasible territory.  Wikipedia lists 35
languages with more than 30 million native speakers, which already
makes it a time-consuming research project, so I suggest picking a much
higher number.  There's still the problem of varying transliterations
into Latin script (the most popular language is Mandarin, of course),
but transliterations are fairly well established for the very popular
languages and there are a limited number of popular transliterations.

You also still need to decide which senses of the English word bear
you want to translate.

-zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: votes on Proposals 4958-4969

[Benjamin Schultz]

On May 9, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Zefram wrote:


I vote:

4958: FOR*8
4959: AGAINST*8 (any Human language makes it impossible to  
administer)


What phrasing do you recommend?  I want to make sure that languages  
other than USian English are okay, but neither Klingon nor C++ are okay.

-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: votes on Proposals 4958-4969

[Roger Hicks]

Perhaps widely spoken human language or commonly used human language? I
think both of those wordings would eliminate I just made up a language
where the name of each player translates to Bear. At least it should hold
up under CfJ

BobTHJ

On 5/9/07, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On May 9, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Zefram wrote:

I vote:

4958: FOR*8
4959: AGAINST*8 (any Human language makes it impossible to administer)


What phrasing do you recommend?  I want to make sure that languages other
than USian English are okay, but neither Klingon nor C++ are okay.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Roger Hicks]

1. I understand my registration may be under dispute. However, if the CFJ
returns in my favor, shouldn't my votes be counted?

2. I can't find anything in the rules stating that my votes are invalid
simply because my registration occurred after proposals were distributed. If
I'm missing something please let me know. I'm not super familiar with the
ruleset yet.

BobTHJ

On 5/4/07, quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Roger Hicks wrote:
 BobTHJ votes as follows:

 4947 - FOR
 4948 - FOR
 4949 - FOR
 4950 - FOR
 4951 - FOR
 4952 - AGAINST
 4953 - FOR
 4954 - AGAINST
 4955 - AGAINST
 4956 - FOR
 4957 - AGAINST


1 - has BobTHJ actually registered yet?  (I believe thats in CFJ)
2 - if BobTHJ did register, didn't registration happen after the
proposals in question were distributed?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Zefram]

Roger Hicks wrote:
I hereby submit the following CFJ:

That's the spirit!  By the way, submitting a CFJ is legal even if
you're not a player, which is just as well with your registration
still uncertain.  But unfortunately that uncertainty does mean that
your CFJ doesn't only hinge on the eligibility rules, and also depends
on your playerhood which is subject to an earlier CFJ.  If you take my
suggestion to register unambiguously now, you'll want to resumbit your
CFJ after registering too.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Michael Slone]

On 5/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Anyone fancy another group of massively-linked CFJs?


I don't think that will be necessary.

By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a
``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable
public agreement on which persons are eligible''.  Therefore, the
class of eligible voters is set when the decision is initiated and
cannot be changed unless specific rules permit it.

By rule 683 (a), a ballot is invalid if it is not submitted by an
eligible voter.  By rule 955 (b), the vote collector only counts valid
ballots when determining the will of Agora, so the voting limit of an
ineligible voter is irrelevant.

As you point out, rule 1950 indicates that voting limits are
determined at the time the decision is initiated.  Of course, this
only affects players who were eligible when the voting period started.
As I argued above, these are the only players who can submit valid
ballots on the decision.

--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
If anyone has ideas or thinks this is laudable or stupid
please do chime in.
   -- Riail, in agora-discussion

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Roger Hicks]

Well, then it appears I submitted an invalid ballot. Such is life.

On 5/4/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On 5/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Anyone fancy another group of massively-linked CFJs?

I don't think that will be necessary.

By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a
``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable
public agreement on which persons are eligible''.  Therefore, the
class of eligible voters is set when the decision is initiated and
cannot be changed unless specific rules permit it.

By rule 683 (a), a ballot is invalid if it is not submitted by an
eligible voter.  By rule 955 (b), the vote collector only counts valid
ballots when determining the will of Agora, so the voting limit of an
ineligible voter is irrelevant.

As you point out, rule 1950 indicates that voting limits are
determined at the time the decision is initiated.  Of course, this
only affects players who were eligible when the voting period started.
As I argued above, these are the only players who can submit valid
ballots on the decision.

--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
If anyone has ideas or thinks this is laudable or stupid
please do chime in.
-- Riail, in agora-discussion

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Kerim Aydin]

Maud wrote:
 By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a
 ``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable
 public agreement on which persons are eligible''.  Therefore, the
 class of eligible voters is set when the decision is initiated and
 cannot be changed unless specific rules permit it.

The class of eligible voters may (or may not) be all current
players and all persons who register during the voting period.  There
is nothing in the above clause preventing this interpretation.  The
act of registration (which makes a person into an eligble
voter) might be seen as specifically permitting a change during
a voting period.

I note that no proposal distribution recently has had a list
or description, perhaps listing a proposal as O or D is sufficient
in many circumstances to  enable public agreement, but not in this case.  

Your opinion may be right (I'm not convinced either way), but I don't
think your above argument supports it as strongly as you think.

=Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Zefram]

Michael Slone wrote:
By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a
``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable
public agreement on which persons are eligible''.  Therefore, the
class of eligible voters is set when the decision is initiated and
cannot be changed unless specific rules permit it.

I'm not at all convinced by that reading.  A class description, such as
the active players, can be interpreted at many different times, such
as when a ballot is cast and at the end of the voting period, and in
each case be sufficient for public agreement.  R107 does not say that
the publicly-agreed set of eligible persons must be the same at all times.

The remainder of your argument falls if your initial interpretation
of R107 falls.  But it does highlight that the other rules appear to
have been written with the assumption that there is exactly one set of
eligible voters per decision.

I note, in passing, that we don't in practice require the notice
defined by R107 to be explicit.  In the past four months that I've been
registered, not a single proposal distribution has explicated the set
of eligible voters or the identity of the vote collector, nor contained
any formula explicating intent to initiate an Agoran decision.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Zefram]

Michael Slone wrote:
(2) people who join in the middle of the voting period can't vote.

This could be construed as a feature.  I thought it was intended as one.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Michael Slone]

On 5/4/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The class of eligible voters may (or may not) be all current
players and all persons who register during the voting period.  There
is nothing in the above clause preventing this interpretation.  The
act of registration (which makes a person into an eligble
voter) might be seen as specifically permitting a change during
a voting period.


By the default in rule 106, the eligible voters are the active
players.



I note that no proposal distribution recently has had a list or
description, perhaps listing a proposal as O or D is sufficient
in many circumstances to enable public agreement, but not in this
case.


Since adopting a proposal is an Agoran decision, every notice of
proposal distribution which omits a description of the class of
eligible voters is invalid.  An Agoran decision is not actually
initiated except by a valid notice.  See rule 107.

--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
Thanks for playing.  Tell your friends!
   -- OscarMeyr, in agora-discussion

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Michael Slone]

On 5/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I note, in passing, that we don't in practice require the notice
defined by R107 to be explicit.


The rules do not vanish when we choose to ignore them.

--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
I think someone has a comprehension problem here.  I don't think it's me.
   -- Kelly, in agora-discussion

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Kerim Aydin]

Maud wrote:
 Now, I know we've been following a judicial path lately, but in this
 case we ought to pursue a legislative solution, even if only to make
 the rules clear.

There are many cases where a concise legislative solution is perferrable,
even in a judicial game.  This is one of them.

In general, a judicial game (to me) is where we take away over-exact
mechanistic procedures and replace them with terms like reasonable or
sufficient or severe or preponderance, or allow the rules to
contain and be interpreted meaningfully with respect to broad,
overarching philosophical principles (rights or persons).

It has nothing to do with desiring impeneratable or self-conflicting
rules for the sole purpose of invoking judgement to unsnarl tangles,
when a rule change could easily clarify matters.

-Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Zefram]

Michael Slone wrote:
The rules do not vanish when we choose to ignore them.

Quite so, but we have a history of allowing paraphrases and implicitudes.
If you seriously doubt the efficacy of present proposal distributions,
please CFJ on it.

Related question: if Agoran decisions have not been properly initiated
on proposals for the past few months, does the last paragraph of R2034
still manage to make the result announcements effective?

-zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Kerim Aydin]

Maud wrote:
 Since adopting a proposal is an Agoran decision, every notice of
 proposal distribution which omits a description of the class of
 eligible voters is invalid.  An Agoran decision is not actually
 initiated except by a valid notice.  See rule 107.

We are now splintering into two separate issues.  Proposal
distributions in memory have not contained such information.  Are
they all invalid?  I would say no, as R107 states:

   (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to
   enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. 

The question is, in this context, what is evidence of public
agreement? This is not the same as an R101 agreement that required
willful consent.  I would say the standard of CFJ indicates lack
of agreement is a reasonable one.

Maud wrote:
 By the default in rule 106, the eligible voters are the active
 players.

But this may be defined continuously throughout the voting period.
We now have a lack of agreement for this particular distribution.

Perhaps, what has really happened is the raising of this issue
has caused a distinct (after the fact) lack of agreement on what
constitutes the eligible voters, which means the distribution
itself did not contain sufficient information (in this case) which
means this distribution (but not prior ones, where there was no
such disagreement in evidence!) was invald.

-Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Zefram]

Kerim Aydin wrote:
means this distribution (but not prior ones, where there was no
such disagreement in evidence!) was invald.

Curious argument.  I never read sufficient to enable ... that way
before.  It would mean that the null description, as has previously
been used, would be sufficient if publicly accepted as sufficient,
even if it is judged that the R107(b) notice must be explicit.

I don't agree with your adoption of the R991 criterion, at least as
sole criterion for determining public agreement.  You can read R991 such
that submission of a CFJ (even if the CFJ is later dismissed or refused)
proves a lack of public agreement, but I think lack of public agreement
can be determined in other ways also.

-zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Kerim Aydin]

Zefram wrote:
 I don't agree with your adoption of the R991 criterion, at least as
 sole criterion for determining public agreement.  You can read R991 such
 that submission of a CFJ (even if the CFJ is later dismissed or refused)
 proves a lack of public agreement, but I think lack of public agreement
 can be determined in other ways also.

You are right.  There are many ways to show lack of agreement.  A CFJ is 
one, a simple (public) request for correction might be another.  However,
a good standard (for the good of the game where silence, etc.) might be:

   If there was no specific disagreement expressed during the 2034
cutoff window, it is reasonable to assume that the formal distribution
format for proposals, in combination with nearby herald reports
on players, etc., provided sufficient criterion for public agreement
on who was eligible.

Hey!  That's a judicial game again, defining reasonable tests for
cutoff windows and evidence of disputes (and what contextual information
from other reports satisfies sufficient information).  

-Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957

[Roger Hicks]

Wow

will every official post I make spark this much controversy? This could be
quite exciting :)

BobTHJ

On 5/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Michael Slone wrote:
The rules do not vanish when we choose to ignore them.

Quite so, but we have a history of allowing paraphrases and implicitudes.
If you seriously doubt the efficacy of present proposal distributions,
please CFJ on it.

Related question: if Agoran decisions have not been properly initiated
on proposals for the past few months, does the last paragraph of R2034
still manage to make the result announcements effective?

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Benjamin Schultz]

On Apr 20, 2007, at 8:35 AM, Zefram wrote:


Benjamin Schultz wrote:

   I am willing to change my votes in return for tangible
offers.


What constitutes tangibility?


That's a very good point, seeing as this game is entirely intangible.

Promises to do something at a later date don't seem tangible to me.   
How about some form of quid pro quo?

-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

DIS: Re: BUS: votes

[Benjamin Schultz]

On Mar 5, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



I vote:
4910:  FOR.
4911:  AGAINST.  Zefram abused it a little, but there are valid
reasons for occasional fractional AIs (e.g. 1.5, etc.)  Why do
we always ban a useful concept for all players because it has
the minor potential for abuse?


Feel free to propose such a change.
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr

DIS: Re: BUS: votes

[Kerim Aydin]

OscarMeyr wrote:

Feel free to propose such a change.


You mean, uh, I like things the way they are and I'm supposed
to propose that as a change?  Talk about an over-regulating
nanny state...

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes

[Ian Kelly]

On 1/30/07, Quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On each proposal in the group of  proposals from  proposal 4893 to proposal
4902 (excluding proposal 4896) I place a vote of FOR, unless without my FOR
vote any one of those proposals would not pass, in which case i place a vote
of PRESENCE.

Also if any proposal in the group of proposals from proposal 4893 to
proposal 4902 (excluding proposal 4896) will pass with no votes against it,
my previous vote upon that proposal shall be retracted and i shall instead
vote AGAINST that proposal.

I vote AGAINST proposal 4896

I place a vote of 1 yellow smartie AGAINST proposal 4903 unless such voting
has been deemed to be invalid, in which case i shall (for the time being)
abstain from placing any vote upon said proposal.


I don't see how you can possibly argue that these votes (excluding
proposal 4896) are valid.

DIS: Re: BUS: votes on 4877-4892

[Jonathan Fry]

Zefram wrote:
 On the Proposals listed below I vote thus:

I thought voting power was set at the beginning of the week (so you wouldn't 
have any votes on these proposals), but I can't seem to find that in the 
ruleset any longer.  Did that requirement go away?

Sherlock


 

Never Miss an Email
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile.  Get started!
http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: votes on 4877-4892

[Zefram]

Jonathan Fry wrote:
I thought voting power was set at the beginning of the week (so you
wouldn't have any votes on these proposals), but I can't seem to find
that in the ruleset any longer.  Did that requirement go away?

Looks like it.  The phrase voting limit appears only in Rule 1950,
which sets the defaults, and Rule 2126, which allows modifications by
expenditure of VCs.  Rule 106 says the eligible voters are the active
players, but I don't see anything that says when that's determined,
so my interpretation is that eligibility should be determined at the
time of voting.

-zefram

DIS: Re: BUS: votes on 4877-4892

[Kerim Aydin]

Zefram wrote:

  Rule 106 says the eligible voters are the active
players, but I don't see anything that says when that's determined,
so my interpretation is that eligibility should be determined at the
time of voting.



From the last paragraph of R1950:

   up to a number equal to that
  person's voting limit on that decision as determined when the
  voting period for that decision began, ^^
  ^^

Easy to miss (I did until Maud pointed it out last month).

-Goethe