Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 23:50:33 +0100 ais523 wrote: > On Sat, 2016-10-22 at 12:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Other note: A fair thing to do would be to hold an election. But > > election for ADoP is resolved by ADoP - a problem! We actually > > used to have "separation of powers" for this, something that read: > > > > "In the case that the election is for the office of ADoP, the > > vote collector is instead [other officer]". > > > > Probably should bring that back! > > We also used to have pairs of offices that couldn't be held > simultaneously by the same person. Currently we have one such pair, > Prime Minister and Speaker (these are described as "incompatible" in > rule 103 which is not defined in the ruleset, but the very next > sentence gives a mechanism via which the exclusion can occur). I don't see why the office responsible for resolving ADoP elections needs to be incompatible with ADoP. -- aranea
BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 3:50 PM, ais523 > wrote: > > This kind-of implies it should be the Promotor who resolves an ADoP > election, except that that doesn't really make logical sense. Perhaps > it should be resolved by the Assessor (who's already used to resolving > elections), or by the Prime Minister (at least in the UK, it's the > Prime Minister who's responsible for assigning people to official > positions in the government). It shouldn't be the Speaker, because that > seems to reduce our options for ADoP for no good reason. I don't particularly see why the Promotor shouldn't be vote collector. It doesn't really fall within the logical scope of the office, but shouldn't we try to avoid extra pairs. [I'm probably biased, being promotor, but it does make some sense] -Aris
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Sat, 2016-10-22 at 12:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Other note: A fair thing to do would be to hold an election. But
> election for ADoP is resolved by ADoP - a problem! We actually
> used to have "separation of powers" for this, something that read:
>
> "In the case that the election is for the office of ADoP, the
> vote collector is instead [other officer]".
>
> Probably should bring that back!
We also used to have pairs of offices that couldn't be held
simultaneously by the same person. Currently we have one such pair,
Prime Minister and Speaker (these are described as "incompatible" in
rule 103 which is not defined in the ruleset, but the very next
sentence gives a mechanism via which the exclusion can occur).
I think it might make sense to have a general incompatible-office
mechanism. Here are the pairs I'd suggest:
{{{
- Prime Minister, Speaker
This is currently the case, and is presumably designed to prevent the
Speaker gaining too much power.
- Promotor, Assessor
This was in the ruleset for absolutely ages, presumably to prevent one
player gaining control over the proposal system (maybe for timing
scams).
- Promotor, ADoP
To prevent one player having too much control over the ability to pend
proposals. (This came up a little earlier.)
- Referee, Arbitor
The Arbitor is meant to keep tabs on the Referee. This is impossible if
they're the same player.
}}}
This kind-of implies it should be the Promotor who resolves an ADoP
election, except that that doesn't really make logical sense. Perhaps
it should be resolved by the Assessor (who's already used to resolving
elections), or by the Prime Minister (at least in the UK, it's the
Prime Minister who's responsible for assigning people to official
positions in the government). It shouldn't be the Speaker, because that
seems to reduce our options for ADoP for no good reason.
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Aris Merchant wrote: > Two miss-sends in a row. Sorry. That's embarrassing. > > There's one way it could be, although it seems unlikely and is going > to be dismissed as too fuzzy. It has to do with how wrong something has > to be to not be a report. One could argue that there is a fundamental > difference between something that is clearly factually incorrect and > something that's ambiguous, and that in the latter case the officer has > discretion. You'd probably be arguing that the purpose of self-ratification > is to clear up ambiguity. It seems more likely that it's there to fix > things people missed, to stop the gamestate from becoming uncorrectably > confused. For instance so that people wouldn't complain about minor date > shifts that no one noticed for multiple months. > -Aris Possible. If it had been marked in the report as ambiguous, I'd agree with this. But remember that if you want an ambiguous report to ratify, you'd better be explicit about it (see the SHALL NOT in R2022, though that doesn't apply to self-ratification).
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
Two miss-sends in a row. Sorry. That's embarrassing. There's one way it could be, although it seems unlikely and is going to be dismissed as too fuzzy. It has to do with how wrong something has to be to not be a report. One could argue that there is a fundamental difference between something that is clearly factually incorrect and something that's ambiguous, and that in the latter case the officer has discretion. You'd probably be arguing that the purpose of self-ratification is to clear up ambiguity. It seems more likely that it's there to fix things people missed, to stop the gamestate from becoming uncorrectably confused. For instance so that people wouldn't complain about minor date shifts that no one noticed for multiple months. -Aris >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
There's one way it could be, although it seems unlikely and is going to be dismissed as too fuzzy. It has to do with how wrong something has to be to not be a report. One could argue that there is a fundamental difference between something that is clearly factually incorrect and something that's ambiguous, and that in the latter case the officer has discretion. You'd be arg >
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > Anyone have arguments why the counterscam didn't work, assuming > Alexis's idea works (in general) in the first place? > > If absolute accuracy is required, Alexis's report was only accurate > if the deputization occurs *before* the report is published. I > covered the cases in counterscam for *during* and *after*. > > It doesn't seem likely that a deputization can occur before the report > is published, so are there arguments that it can? (or something > I've missed?) There's one way it could be, although it seems unlikely and is going to be dismissed as too fuzzy. It has to do with how wrong something has to be to not be a report. One could argue that there is a fun
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I think we just call it "converging the gamestate" (very much not new to > Alexis. Here you go. > > Maybe we don't need a new term, but I was talking about the specific case > where > the person in an office was unclear. During something called the "Annabel Crisis", some actions led to questioning who held just about every office. I think we got every single player to announce "I resign the office of Assessor" to be 100% sure the office was vacant, then someone took the job up to announce the Proposal results that retroactively fixed things. (my memory is hazy, it might have happened differently, but it did take every single player announcing some particular action to be sure of an office-holder - this was before self-ratification, and the proposal we had to pass was to ratify everything in place, once we were sure who held Assessor). Other note: A fair thing to do would be to hold an election. But election for ADoP is resolved by ADoP - a problem! We actually used to have "separation of powers" for this, something that read: "In the case that the election is for the office of ADoP, the vote collector is instead [other officer]". Probably should bring that back!
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I think we just call it "converging the gamestate" (very much not new to > Alexis. Here you go. > Maybe we don't need a new term, but I was talking about the specific case where the person in an office was unclear. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, ais523 wrote: > > > On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 22:02 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 13:41 Luis Ressel wrote: > > > > Congrats to our new Promotor! I'm glad something is interested in > > > > taking this over after almost two years. If you've got any > > > > questions about your new job, feel free to write me an email. > > > > > > > If I am ADoP, I resolve the election as quoted. > > > > Thus reducing the ambiguity to who Aris needs to email if e has > > questions about being Promotor? :-P > > Except if G. managed to counterscam... Anyone have arguments why the counterscam didn't work, assuming Alexis's idea works (in general) in the first place? If absolute accuracy is required, Alexis's report was only accurate if the deputization occurs *before* the report is published. I covered the cases in counterscam for *during* and *after*. It doesn't seem likely that a deputization can occur before the report is published, so are there arguments that it can? (or something I've missed?)
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Friday, October 21, 2016, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > Except if G. managed to counterscam... > > Greetings, > Ørjan. Good point, although the ratification without objection should do it. Still... G., would you do an Alexian collapse (as I will try to get people to call it, unless we have a name already) (a way of collapsing the gamestate when the person responsible for an action is unclear, by having all of the possible actors take the same action.) -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Fri, 21 Oct 2016, ais523 wrote: On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 22:02 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 13:41 Luis Ressel wrote: Congrats to our new Promotor! I'm glad something is interested in taking this over after almost two years. If you've got any questions about your new job, feel free to write me an email. If I am ADoP, I resolve the election as quoted. Thus reducing the ambiguity to who Aris needs to email if e has questions about being Promotor? :-P Except if G. managed to counterscam... Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Friday, October 21, 2016, ais523 wrote: > On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 22:02 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 13:41 Luis Ressel > > wrote: > > > Congrats to our new Promotor! I'm glad something is interested in > > > taking this over after almost two years. If you've got any > > > questions about your new job, feel free to write me an email. > > > > > If I am ADoP, I resolve the election as quoted. > > Thus reducing the ambiguity to who Aris needs to email if e has > questions about being Promotor? :-P > > -- > ais523 > First of all, that was an informal comment, so I don't think we have gamestate ambiguity anymore, given that it isn't really part of the gamestate. Or rather no one and no rules care about it, and it is unregulated, unless someone makes a retroactive rule (and even then, that's a legal fiction) Second, Aranea is the person to ask because of eir experience in the role, not eir office as ADoP. -Aris
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Fri, 2016-10-21 at 22:02 +, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 13:41 Luis Ressel wrote: > > Congrats to our new Promotor! I'm glad something is interested in > > taking this over after almost two years. If you've got any > > questions about your new job, feel free to write me an email. > > > If I am ADoP, I resolve the election as quoted. Thus reducing the ambiguity to who Aris needs to email if e has questions about being Promotor? :-P -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Promotor election
On Friday, October 21, 2016, Luis Ressel wrote: > > Outcome: Aris > > = > > Congrats to our new Promotor! I'm glad something is interested in > taking this over after almost two years. If you've got any questions > about your new job, feel free to write me an email. > > -- > aranea > Well, thanks to everyone who voted for me, and to aranea for opening up the position and helping me get it. I'm sure I'll be keeping all of my campaign promises. :) (I never made any) I'll do my best to fulfill the obligations of the office. I'm going to keep the report format pretty much the same for now, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that it seems to work well and make sense. -Aris
