Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6070 - 6072

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 [Yes, I'm aware of the counterargument that defaults *might* mean
 another rule of lower power *might* be able to change it, but an
 equal reading is defaults in this context might mean that if it is
 not set at the time of submission, this is what it is, YMMV].

Speaking of which, do we have a precedent that essential parameters
of a decision, once initiated, can change during the voting process?
(given the first paragraph of r107).  I'm aware that this would break 
democritization as well if it were not true.  I remember discussion but 
can't remember if there was a case about it.  -G.

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6070 - 6072

[Alexander Smith]

Goethe wrote:
 On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote:
  [Yes, I'm aware of the counterargument that defaults *might* mean
  another rule of lower power *might* be able to change it, but an
  equal reading is defaults in this context might mean that if it is
  not set at the time of submission, this is what it is, YMMV].
 
 Speaking of which, do we have a precedent that essential parameters
 of a decision, once initiated, can change during the voting process?
 (given the first paragraph of r107).  I'm aware that this would break 
 democritization as well if it were not true.  I remember discussion but 
 can't remember if there was a case about it.  -G.

They definitely can per R101: otherwise, rule 2154 would prevent players
deregistering during an election period, which would be ridiculous.
(Proposals have an at the start of the voting period rider on voter
eligibility; elections don't, meaning that deregistering causes a player
to cease to be an eligible voter on a currently active election.)

There are a /lot/ of rules which assume that is definitions do not
necessarily imply immutability, I think. I may go looking for more
examples sometime. I also feel that assumptions made by the rules are
quite a good reflection of game custom, even if they do not necessarily
determine it.
-- 
ais523
winmail.dat

RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6070 - 6072

[Alexander Smith]

I wrote:
 There are a /lot/ of rules which assume that is definitions do not
 necessarily imply immutability, I think. I may go looking for more
 examples sometime. I also feel that assumptions made by the rules are
 quite a good reflection of game custom, even if they do not necessarily
 determine it.

Actually, I even found an explicit mention, rather than just an
implication.

Rule 2154:
{{{
   1) The valid options (hereafter the candidates) are the active
  players who, during the election,
[snip]
  The set of candidates can change after the decision is
  initiated.
}}}
Rule 106:
{{{
  (c) A clear indication of the options available.
}}}

(Note that (c) is not an essential parameter by the strictest
definition, as the rules define anything that is required to initiate
an Agoran Decision but not in rule 106 as an essential parameter,
presumably for bookkeeping purposes.)

As a separate argument, this paragraph from rule 106:
{{{
  An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to
  initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent
  to initiate the decision.  This notice is invalid if it lacks
  any of the following information, and the lack is correctly
  identified within one week after the notice is published:
}}}
strongly implies to me that essential parameters (plus the other
parameters required by rule 106) are required to /initiate/ the
decision, not for its continuing existence or immutability. In the
case of elections, and in the case of vetos, some of the parameters
have been historically been known to change from time to time, and
nobody has raised an eyebrow up to now.

As arguments as to proposal 6072 specifically, I'd say that the
example in the following paragraph:
{{{
  (a) The matter to be decided (for example, the adoption of
  proposal 4781).
}}}
implies that a change in the proposal (if indeed one is possible)
does not change anything in the Agoran Decision about it. My
conclusions are that proposal 6072 has indeed been adopted (or will
be when the Assessor gets round to it), with AI 3. (Incidentally, I
used to think that the AI of a proposal != the AI of a decision, but
comex convinced me otherwise, pointing out that the seventh
paragraph of rule 106 effectively defines the two to be the same
thing.) So I suppose now we can just argue about whether the
proposal deregistered the AFO, or whether it gave comex a power-3
dictatorship...

-- 
ais523
winmail.dat