Speaker, as at present) are in doubt.]
}}}
-zefram
* not(x) is UNDEPRECATED == x is UNRECOMMENDED]
}}}
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
>I vote as follows:
NttPF.
-zefram
n rules can
modify the Primo charter by virtue of the latter being a R1742 agreement,
but that's not Primo *allowing* changes.
-zefram
27;t think
it ever qualified as a protectorate.
-zefram
Peekee wrote:
>What about all the devolved governments?
They are unicameral, and use geographical constituencies, like the Commons.
-zefram
reconcile the two versions:
it's a question of who gets bored first, or whether the Lords gets
sufficiently intimidated by a threat of the Parliament Act.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
> Mostly just renaming things for flavor, but there is a
>bit of substance.]
I dislike most of the renaming. The substance is in fact that of proposal
5050, which was voted down. Please develop some new mechanics if you
want to use the population concept.
-zefram
I wrote:
>I believe HP2 has not yet submitted this judgement,
Ah, found it in the "Judicial foo" thread. Sorry.
-zefram
in the other.
-zefram
Roger Hicks wrote:
>I hereby judge TRUE.
NttPF. (R591/19 specifies judgement by publication.)
-zefram
finished
business.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
>5080 FOR x 4 (yes, I have a reason for doing this)
Just the potential reward/penalty, or something better?
-zefram
duties.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Amend Rule 2126 to assign each player a state with a population,
>some portion of which supports em.
What will this achieve?
-zefram
Taral wrote:
>>5079 Oi 1Murphy Disambiguate CotC
>AGAINST
Why?
-zefram
that would
>just introduce more state problems.
Yes, that would be a lot worse.
If no one votes AGAINST then there's no problem from this direction
anyway, because the VI won't be in any doubt.
-zefram
s VCs in one way, and so of only one color, e can
acquire VCs of a second color (in order to spend them in the
interesting ways) by cooperation. It's a lot less efficient than
earning VCs of a second color oneself, so there's still the incentive
to partake of more than one in-game activity.]
}}}
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>I consent and support this.
I don't think HP2's actually made the announcement of intent for that.
I interpret the message as Murphy giving advance warning that HP2 will
probably make those announcements of intent.
-zefram
ng of the subject of the
appeal to the same judge as it previously had, the post-reform
judgement is REMAND.
+ Otherwise the post-reform judgement is REASSIGN.
* For each pre-reform appeal of a judgement in which not all three
appellate judges have rendered judgement, the post-reform appeal
case has its question on disposition open.
* Aspects of continuity not addressed by the above provisions shall be
governed by rule 1586. The above provisions shall guide the
application of rule 1586.
[Rule 1586 theoretically should achieve all of this on its own. As
it's a particularly radical redefinition of complex entities, explicit
provisions seem helpful.]
}}}
-zefram
ies internally, but if a legal
obligation is not met then all are answerable. The technical term is
"jointly and severally liable". I certainly intended it to work that
way, and I don't fancy requiring the courts to work out which of the
members incurs a particular obligation.
-zefram
uot;
is interpreted. Well done.
-zefram
Peekee wrote:
>Does it need to pass all of its obligations onto all of its members?
Yes, that's how "member" is defined.
-zefram
I hereby vote:
>5075 Oi 1 Zefram MMIify truthfulness
FOR*10
>5076 Di 3Murphy Three-Tone Economics
FOR
>5077 Di 2Murphy MMI in practice
FOR
>5078 Di 3Zefram refactor voting limits
FOR
-zefram
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to
With "speaker as an office" having been adopted, this text has changed.
-zefram
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Would it fix things to make it an entity switch (but still only allow
>persons to register)?
Yes, I think so.
-zefram
but the effect is slight.
>Amend Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) by removing "ordinary".
Which instance of it?
-zefram
by announcement.
I suggest "CAN ... if and only if", or alternatively "CAN ... if" and
rely on the default CANNOT. ("if and only if" might run into trouble
with things that can be performed more than one way.)
-zefram
a player, but without being deregistered. Both sides of
that will screw things up.
All the other amendments look fine.
-zefram
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>I believe BobTHJ is on vacation without net access for the entire
>week;
There's more to it than that. Primo's cases were assigned almost two
weeks ago; judgements were already overdue before the start of this week.
-zefram
A partnership whose basis contains at least two persons is a
person.
-zefram
and sitting players in another,
Ah, yes. My concept of "unqualified" is stronger than the current
"ineligible", and I don't disqualify sitting players. It's CAN versus
MAY again.
-zefram
comex wrote:
>I hereby announce that my nickname is Murphy.
Well, it's not. Your nickname is still "comex". The meaning of the
nickname "Murphy" can't be changed by such an announcement.
-zefram
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A player may perform a dependent action by announcement if and
"CAN".
-zefram
>Repeal Rule 2128 (Winning).
Already repealed this morning (P5060).
-zefram
concept.
>Including a defendant found guilty. Well, if e can't get 2 support,
>then eir conviction likely wouldn't have been overturned anyway.
Final paragraph of "Criminal Cases" validates unsupported appeal by
the defendant. "CAN" does not imply "CAN ONLY".
>Here is why The Standing Court isn't broken:
I'm mystified as to how you thought it might be broken. The statements
that you list here are correct, but not directly related to each other.
-zefram
on players, and so none of the enforcement
mechanisms in R1742 can make an agreement binding on a non-player.
In that case it is doubtful that the agreement would qualify for R2145's
reference to "a binding agreement". This has yet to be tested in court.
-zefram
P of
each player is set to exactly what eir VLOP was immediately before the
amendments occurred, and the VVLOP of each player is set to what eir
VLOP was plus whatever modifications were due to have been made by
rule 2126 at the next end of week.
[Continuity. Would be tricky to determine what rule 1586 would do
without the explicit clause.]
}}}
-zefram
e been meaning to refactor all the voting limit rules to avoid this
kind of confusion, but I held off because those rules were in flux
so much. There are no relevant proposals under vote now, though, so
proto soon, unless someone else gets there first.
-zefram
, the post-reform
judgement is REMAND.
+ Otherwise the post-reform judgement is REASSIGN.
* For each pre-reform appeal of a judgement in which not all three
appellate judges have rendered judgement, the post-reform appeal
case has its question on disposition open.
* Aspects of continuity not addressed by the above provisions shall be
governed by rule 1586. The above provisions shall guide the
application of rule 1586.
[Rule 1586 theoretically should achieve all of this on its own. As
it's a particularly radical redefinition of complex entities, explicit
provisions seem helpful.]
}}}
-zefram
.
One can prove a case in either direction. I intended "unproven" to be
interpreted in this neutral manner. "Unrefuted", which you mention,
is definitely one-sided, however.
How about "UNDETERMINED"?
-zefram
should be punished.
[More general language avoids tight interaction with any particular
form of judicial process. Rights made more explicit and stronger.]
}}}
-zefram
ne is Timing
Orders, but you don't remove that. Your proto removes rule text mostly
by removing functionality.
-zefram
le can return immediately if the sentence is belatedly appealed.
Incidentally, we don't currently have any rules that assign any semantics
to being in the chokey. Were there ever any? What sort of thing was
intended to be prohibited to inmates?
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Note to Zefram: Don't forget to amend R101(iii) to match the
>new "invoke" free terminology
I think the interpretation of R101 was that its use of "invoke" has a
meaning independent of the actual judicial rules, so it doesn't need to
be ch
ng useful,
particularly in the presence of "The Standing Court". I've already
proposed its repeal.
"Judgements Must Accord with the Rules" and "Standards of Proof" are
partly there, in appropriate places. For example, the higher standard
of proof in criminal cases is built into the judgement options. I should
probably adopt more from these rules.
-zefram
y with
criminal cases, we've had a legal mess due to the limitations of CFJs
being based around a single true/false question.
-zefram
anything other than a judgement is a
detail of the CFJ (post-reform inquiry case) to which it is
attached, and does not continue to exist as a distinct post-reform
entity.
* Each pre-reform appeal of a judgement continues to exist as a
post-reform appeal case regarding the assignment of that judgement
to the question on veracity in the inquiry case.
[TODO: more detail probably required on appeals]
}}}
-zefram
Peekee wrote:
>I believe accountants(?) etc. use that rounding fairly often.
No. Bankers' rounding is nearest-or-even. That's also the usual mode
for binary floating point arithmetic.
-zefram
or is an office; its holder is responsible for
> keeping track of scores and contests.
Report?
-zefram
hing. See proto "protectorate procedure" which I've
just posted.
-zefram
s is now covered by the anti-fraud provisions in
the rule on protective decrees.]
}}}
-zefram
e to define a procedure, but it has to be reasonably
possible for Agora to deliberately initiate that procedure. If the method
is secret, you're not in practice allowing Agora to change the rules.
-zefram
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>think I saw a link to the agreement that this partnership is based on.
>Is it possible to resend that link for me to look at?
http://groups.google.com/group/primo-corporation/web/primo-corporation---charter
-zefram
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>I wish to register as a Player.
Per CFJ 1263, you are now a player (as of your message). Do you wish
to be referred to by any particular nickname?
-zefram
ng we wanted from a wiki.
-zefram
istrative
office.]
Amend rule 1006 by replacing the text "an Officer or the Speaker" with
"an officer".
[With the speaker being an officer, this is now redundant.]
}}}
-zefram
judicial process work by announcement,
instead of indirectly via the CotC.]
}}}
-zefram
too restrictive. This
does better without any special terminology.]
Amend rule 1826 by replacing the text "after a case is closed" with
"after a case has been judged".
[The term "closed CFJ" has also gone away.]
}}}
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>A little over 8 hours into it... Happy Birthday, Agora!
Oerjan also sends birthday greetings.
-zefram
ortunately end the aesthetic arrangement of having the ASCII art
rules first and last. Would anyone object to the map not being first?
We'd have the serious and important rule 101 first in its place.
-zefram
uot;basis" from rule 2144, because it
fits nicely here and is useful in restricting which partnerships
qualify as persons.]
Amend rule 2144 by deleting the paragraph which begins "A
partnership's basis".
["Basis" is now defined in rule 2145. Rule 2144 is left with only
regulation, not definition.]
}}}
-zefram
vestigation Report using the same
number and including the revised recommendations. Such revised
Investigation Reports should clearly indicate that they are a revision
of a previous report.
}}}
}}}
-zefram
I've posted my current proposal database at
<http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/proposals_data.txt>. It goes back
to when I took over the Promotorship. I'll keep it up to date in that
location.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
>There was a "CFJs and judgements must be public" proposal or proto
>at some point. What's the current status of that one?
Proposal 5015, adopted four days ago. CFJs must be by announcement,
but it doesn't address judgements.
-zefram
the beginning of this year.
We've all been appropriately lazy and taken full advantage of R2034.
-zefram
s applied to proposals), to avoid requiring
another CFJ concerning the latter term.
-zefram
in the message at <http://www.agoranomic.org/
cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-May/006564.html>. Easy VCs
for em today, despite having previously been pseudo-delinquent on
these CFJs.
-zefram
comex wrote:
> If there are complications, Zefram did
>not mention them when calling this CFJ.
The only complication is that at the time GreyKnight believed that e could
not legally assign a judge to those CFJs. Per CFJ 1604 e was mistaken,
but of cours
between "Disinterested Proposals"
and my "per-week proposal VCs". If both are adopted then the award
clause in R2126 gets mangled.
-zefram
latter was approximately (but not exactly) a judicial
revocation of personhood: an outlaw categorically had no standing to sue,
killing an outlaw was categorically not murder, and so on. I'd suggest
developing lawlessness in such a direction, if we ever used it.
-zefram
udge's choice, within 72 hours.
This incorporates rule 908, which should therefore be repealed.
-zefram
It would be
better as an entity switch, as it presently is in effect.
-zefram
synonyms,
I don't think it's so trivial. But you're welcome to go through the
whole ruleset and replace "register" with "become a player" and so on.
I won't object to the terms not being defined when they're no longer
used in the ruleset.
-zefram
alty remedies
in R1742, which you're removing. Non-Civil CFJs are (as they always
have been) entirely civil, however.
-zefram
with values Unregistered and
> Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A player is a person
> whose citizenship is Registered.
So if a player ceases to be a person, e automatically ceases to be
a player. That's less pragmatic than the current last paragraph of R869.
You should also retain definitions for the terms defined in the current
(post-P5011) first paragraph.
-zefram
"Civil CFJ" terminology.
-zefram
only have one indeterminacy left
in the ruleset, so it's tempting to excise it and make the game fully
determinate. Please don't extend the use of randomness.
-zefram
the economics of using this
procedure, especially when you're retaining the decrease-by-one procedure.
-zefram
The Pineapple Partnership hereby votes:
5027: FOR*4
5028: FOR*4
5029: FOR*4
5030: FOR*4
5032: FOR*4
5034: AGAINST*4
5035: FOR*4
5036: FOR*4
5037: FOR*4
5039: FOR*4
5040: FOR*4
-zefram
layers that have
> the same Party as the proposer gain a number of points equal to
> the AI of that proposal.
This compromises democracy, by creating an incentive to vote on Democratic
proposals on some grounds other than the proposal's merit.
-zefram
entity numbered turns out not to have existed.
I have an idea for preventing the use of really colossal numbers: require
that the ID number being assigned be stated explicitly as a decimal
literal in the assigning announcement. No chained arrow notation for us.
-zefram
#x27;s VLOP goes through an extra *0.9 multiplier at the end of
the week. There'll be some level of VLOP where this mechanism matches
the efficiency of increasing one's friends' VLOP, as a way to influence
voting power, and we'd expect to see VLOPs plateau at about that value.
-zefram
;Rule 2136/0 (Power=1)
>Contests
Extraneous text in the proposal.
You appear not to change R2136, nor to do anything with Parties.
-zefram
iterion would steer a judge towards
an interpretation that lets the game continue (though not necessarily
one where no replacements at all occurred).
-zefram
r identification"
>with this text:
There are a couple of other places that refer to a rule's number.
They should be updated to refer explicitly to a rule's ID number.
-zefram
is pretty innocuous.
Comments?
-zefram
only unanimously-favoured proposals will pass without VC spending.
Not an appealing vision. Perhaps that could be countered by making VLAOP
(and VCs?) decay, which is something I proposed back in April but was
voted down with VI > 2.3.
-zefram
Taral wrote:
>I can't wait to get my hands on this...
Memo to Agora: don't put Eris in charge of numbering anything if e's
got a seventeen-digit number secreted about eir person.
-zefram
han the disease.
It's been tried before, and it's stifling. We don't in practice have
difficulty in managing, debating, and voting on all the proposals that
get made in the unrestricted system, so any restriction is entirely
artificial, which is bad economics and bad gameplay.
-zefram
.
Been thinking about this. Kicking a proposal up to needing a 2/3
supermajority is an awfully big change. Might be better to decouple
chamber from AI a bit. Thus a concerned VLOP-minority could make the
proposal Democratic but leave its AI at 1 or whatever it was.
-zefram
repropose it? I'll vote
in favour this time.
-zefram
Ian Kelly wrote:
>Partnerships can still:
Some of these there's a good case for restricting. I don't see a problem
with them holding office, in general, though, or voting on non-democratic
proposals.
-zefram
comex wrote:
>I hereby deregister Human Point Two via R869.
Are you claiming that HP2 has lost person status by a change of partners?
If not, if partnerships don't (and didn't) qualify as persons then HP2
was never a person and so could never register as a player.
-zefram
the proposal attempting to modify a high-precedence rule, if that's
what you mean. R2034 affects the mechanics of proposal adoption, not
the mechanics of the effects of proposals. It can't give a proposal
the capability to do things that proposals categorically can't do.
-zefram
s out that the Speaker isn't a Player, and R103 takes over.
This would not happen upon a judgement. This would happen if HP2 were
a player and then we deregistered em. In the situation at hand, though,
the question is whether HP2 was *ever* a player.
-zefram
comex wrote:
>Does it have to have one?
No, but it's generally more convenient if it does.
-zefram
estrictions
accordingly. I don't see a problem with the existence or (second-class)
personhood of partnerships.
-zefram
comex wrote:
>I submit the following proposal:
No title.
>Whereas Rule 955 is titled "Determining the Will of Agora",
Rule titles have no legal force. I don't think you can claim that Agora
has a will based on this.
-zefram
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Proto-Proposal: Regulate ID numbers
Good generalisation.
-zefram
801 - 900 of 1324 matches
Mail list logo
