Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's served its purpose
On 6/22/2019 11:02 PM, James Cook wrote: On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Jason Cobb wrote: I note that the Ritual has been performed for 5 continuous weeks. The ruleset has in the past been Appeased for 5 continuous weeks, but I had been assuming R2596's "has been continuously appeased at the moment of banishment" meant it had to be continuous up to the moment of banishment. If this intent is acted on halfway through next week, then it will have been continuously appeased for 2.5 weeks (which probably counts as 2) up to that point. (I've been keeping track in the Treasuror weekly.) And that's assuming The Ritual is performed this week. I don't think it has yet. > Note: you have to announce, ahead of time in the intent, the exact amount of consent you will require at the time you complete the action, accurate to the nearest 0.1 week or rather reciprocal calculation thereof (I don't think you round the weeks before you make the calculation - it clearly states rounding happens afterwards). I mean - banishment requires a painful degree of precision, a single smudged line and the forces of darkness are released and all...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's served its purpose
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Jason Cobb wrote: > I note that the Ritual has been performed for 5 continuous weeks. The ruleset has in the past been Appeased for 5 continuous weeks, but I had been assuming R2596's "has been continuously appeased at the moment of banishment" meant it had to be continuous up to the moment of banishment. If this intent is acted on halfway through next week, then it will have been continuously appeased for 2.5 weeks (which probably counts as 2) up to that point. (I've been keeping track in the Treasuror weekly.) And that's assuming The Ritual is performed this week. I don't think it has yet.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8180-8187
Same comment as to Jason Cobb: I don't think this worked. On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 20:33, D. Margaux wrote: > > I earn (8-1)*1.7 = 12 coins for this proposal > > > On Jun 22, 2019, at 2:43 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > PROPOSAL 8181 (Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1)) > > FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Aris, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, G., twg+ > > AGAINST: Walker > > PRESENT: Owen > > AI (F/A): 21/3 (AI=1.7) > > BALLOTS: 10 (quorum 9) > > OUTCOME: ADOPTED
DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so
On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Rebecca wrote: > Title: Spaceships > AI: 1.1 Why 1.1?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
Nitpick: I believe the ratification you quote failed, but D. Margaux's
earlier Astronomor report did self-ratify, which is just as good.
See the section "D. Margaux's attempt to ratify without objection
failed." in my judgement of CFJ 3726 at
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3726
On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 02:47, Rebecca wrote:
>
> Awesome. I withdraw my pending CFJ with the statement "There are no
> Sectors" (or any similar statement)
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 8:50 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>
> > Having heard no objection, I ratify the document below.
> >
> > There. Now it’s clear that the prior reports were indeed retroactively
> > true and accurate.
> >
> > > On May 20, 2019, at 4:31 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > >
> > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at
> > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> > >
> > > { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> > have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> > >
> > > Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the Spaaace
> > Rules has its default value.
> > >
> > > There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> > Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to the
> > Spaaace Rules. }
> > >
> > > The document is false; the reason for ratifying it is that the subgames
> > are defunct.
> > >
> > >> On May 20, 2019, at 8:18 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > >>
> > >> What if, by ratification, we reset all Spaaace and Politics switches to
> > their default values before suspending?
> > >>
> > >>> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:08 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I vote AGAINST 8177.
> > >>> I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177.
> > >>>
> > >>> As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space early on, as have
> > >>> others. Willing to sit out of a subgame this long, but not through
> > >>> a whole revival.
> > >>>
> > >>> On 5/19/2019 6:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >>> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> > >>> > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> > >>> > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> > >>> > quorum is 3, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> > >>> > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> > >>> > conditional votes).
> > >>> >
> > >>> > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> > >>> >
> > ---
> > >>> > 8177 Aris, [1] 3.0 Side-Game Suspension Act (v3)
> > >>> >
> > >>> > The proposal pool is currently empty.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > [1] D Margaux, G.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > //
> > >>> > ID: 8177
> > >>> > Title: Side-Game Suspension Act (v3)
> > >>> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > >>> > Author: Aris
> > >>> > Co-authors: D Margaux, G.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Side-Game Suspension", with the
> > >>> > following text:
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >1. The Spaaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590,
> > 2591, 2592,
> > >>> > 2593 and 2594.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535,
> > 2536, 2537,
> > >>> > 2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >3. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Spaaace Rules are
> > suspended and
> > >>> > have no force or effect until Spaaace is Revived.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >4. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Politics Rules are
> > >>> > suspended and have no force or effect until Politics is
> > Revived.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has
> > already
> > >>> > been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office
> > >>> > of Astronomor.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics
> > has already
> > >>> > been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the
> > office of Clork.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >7. If Politics and Spaaace have both been Revived, then any
> > player CAN cause
> > >>> > this Rule to repeal itself with Notice.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When
> > this Rule is
> > >>> > triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the
> > Politics Rules are
> > >>> > automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless
> > >>> > Politics has been
> > >>> > Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in
> > ascending
> > >>> > numerical order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c)
> > this Rule is
> > >>> > automatically repealed.
> > >>> >
> > >> --
> > >> D. Margaux
> >
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
I'm happy to give up Treasuror if anyone is interested, or maybe Registrar if someone really wants it. On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 04:08, Reuben Staley wrote: > Is anyone else interested in Rulekeepor right now? If you are, I'm good > with letting an election play out, though I really do enjoy the job. > > On 6/21/19 5:31 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > I intend to initiate elections for Promotor, Tailor, ADoP and Rulekeepor, > > with two support (90 days having passed) > > > > (I will stand for ADoP if that intent gets two support. I will not resolve > > the other intents because I do not wish to stand, but I am making them in > > case anyone else wishes to do so) > > > > -- > Trigon
Re: DIS: Seriously, what do you guys think about the Revival of Spaaace?
Or i mean i could do that it does seem like my job On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:45 PM Rebecca wrote: > Sorry, I meant the space rules? That would enable me to recall the CFJ I > filed. > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:44 PM Rebecca wrote: > >> (That's why I've made a proposal to create spaceships, yeah) >> >> Can you find the message where we ratified out the space ru >> >> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:42 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >>> >>> On 6/22/2019 7:19 PM, Rebecca wrote: >>> > Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? >>> Are >>> > you planning to battle your spces? discuss today >>> >>> I believe all of the space assets were eliminated via ratification? >>> There's >>> no provisions in the rules for creating new spaceships, except via >>> registration (unless I'm missing something obvious?) >>> >>> >> >> -- >> From R. Lee >> > > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Seriously, what do you guys think about the Revival of Spaaace?
Sorry, I meant the space rules? That would enable me to recall the CFJ I filed. On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:44 PM Rebecca wrote: > (That's why I've made a proposal to create spaceships, yeah) > > Can you find the message where we ratified out the space ru > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:42 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> On 6/22/2019 7:19 PM, Rebecca wrote: >> > Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? Are >> > you planning to battle your spces? discuss today >> >> I believe all of the space assets were eliminated via ratification? >> There's >> no provisions in the rules for creating new spaceships, except via >> registration (unless I'm missing something obvious?) >> >> > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Seriously, what do you guys think about the Revival of Spaaace?
(That's why I've made a proposal to create spaceships, yeah) Can you find the message where we ratified out the space ru On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:42 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/22/2019 7:19 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? Are > > you planning to battle your spces? discuss today > > I believe all of the space assets were eliminated via ratification? > There's > no provisions in the rules for creating new spaceships, except via > registration (unless I'm missing something obvious?) > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Seriously, what do you guys think about the Revival of Spaaace?
On 6/22/2019 7:19 PM, Rebecca wrote: Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? Are you planning to battle your spces? discuss today I believe all of the space assets were eliminated via ratification? There's no provisions in the rules for creating new spaceships, except via registration (unless I'm missing something obvious?)
DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Weekly Report
I don't think the Rules define the position of "Cartographor"... Jason Cobb On 6/22/19 10:39 PM, Rebecca wrote: It is my current position under the Rules as they stand that the entities as they existed in the previous spaceship rules are not continuous. Therefore, there are no spaceships and no sectors. The Ideal Sector number is 2 more than the number of spaceships, so I create 2 sectors with the ID numbers 1 and 2 (and the informal names "Andromeda Galaxy" and "Milky Way". The self-ratifying portion of this report follows ---List of Sectors--- Sector 1: Andromeda Galaxy Sector 2: Milky Way Galaxy ---Spaceships-- There are no spaceships ---Location-- No spaceship has a location ---Armour-- No spaceship has any armour. ---Energy-- There is no energy. ---Fame--- Each player has 0 fame. This ends the self-ratifying portion of the report. I CoE this report with the following reason: there are more than zero spaceships. I refer this CoE to the pending CFJ that I filed with the statement "There are no sectors" I claim a reward of 5 coins for this report.
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Ah sorry. I promise that I can read!
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 10:20 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
No, you're getting the formula wrong. Rule 879 says that "If no other
rule defines the quorum of an Agoran Decision, the quorum for that
decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the Agoran
Decision to adopt a proposal that had been most recently resolved at
the time of that decision's initiation, the whole rounded to the
nearest integer (breaking ties upward)." 6.66 rounded to the nearest
integer is 7. 7.333 rounded to the nearest integer is also 7.
The only situation where something gets rounded up is if there's a tie
(so, like at 6.5). Ties are impossible when you're multiplying by 2/3;
I guess I wasn't thinking very clearly when I wrote the proposal to
change the quorum default. :)
-Aris
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:15 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Why wouldn't the quorum change? The highest numbered proposal in the
purported resolution had 10 voters. With Telnaior, it would go to 11.
By Rule 879, quorum is ceil(2/3*(# voters on last resolved decision to
adopt a proposal)). 10*2/3=6.666..., which goes to 7. With Telnaior,
11*2/3=7.333..., which goes to 8.
Am I making a wrong assumption about which proposal resolution counts as
the most recent?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 10:07 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a
reply to the thread):
Thanks for pointing that out; you're right that I didn't notice. On
this occasion, quorum is unchanged due to the way the rounding works
out.
CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
Also, what exactly is your "standard reward policy"?
A small reward of coins and my sincere gratitude.
-Aris
On 6/22/19 9:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Here's a draft of my Promotor report. My standard reward policy for
catching errors is in effect.
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).
IDAuthor(s) AITitle
---
8188 G.3.0 Blanket Denial
8189 Jason Cobb1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
8190 G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
8191 R. Lee1.1 Spaceships
8192 G.1.0 auctions have fees
The proposal pool is currently empty.
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//
ID: 8188
Title: Blanket Denial
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
do one of the following in a timely fashion:
with
do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
that clearly cites the claim of error:
//
ID: 8189
Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
Replace the text
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
with the text
Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by announcement,
impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a fine of
up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots in the fine,
the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary Judgement is
imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
//
ID: 8190
Title: Report Rewards
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: G.
Co-authors: D Margaux
Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by prepending the following text to the 1st
paragraph:
An Office is a position described as an Office by the Rules.
Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
published in a week and the first monthly report published in a
month.
with:
* Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that
publication was the first report published for that office in
the relevant time period (week or month respectively) to fulfill
an official weekly or monthly duty: 5 coins.
/
Re: DIS: Seriously, what do you guys think about the Revival of Spaaace?
IANAAL ("I am not an Agora Lawyer").
I would argue that this is the key section from Rule 1586 ("Definition
and Continuity of Entities"):
If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
no longer defines the second entity, then the second entity and
its attributes cease to exist.
The key question is which entity is "the entity that defines another
entity" is "the Rules as a whole (i.e. the Ruleset)" or the individual
rule that defines whatever spaaace entity you're looking at. I would be
tempted to argue that the Ruleset should be interpreted as a whole,
especially given that there are Rules that resolve conflicts between
rules (I'm sure there's precedent here, I just don't know about it).
With the Side-Game Suspension Act, the Ruleset as a whole as amended. If
the Ruleset was the defining entity, then I would argue that, under Rule
1586, all of the spaaace entities ceased to exist, since the Ruleset no
longer defined them (thanks to Rule precedence). However, if each
individual spaaace rule is the defining entity, then that specific
entity was no longer amended. Thus there would be no provisions under
Rule 1586 to destroy those entities. I would thus argue that the
entities would continue to exist, but there would be no provisions in
the Rules to give them force.
As to the question of which is the defining entity, I submit this
passage from the same Rule (Rule 1586):
If multiple rules attempt to define an entity with the same name,
then they refer to the same entity. A rule-defined entity's name
CANNOT be changed to be the same as another rule-defined entity's
name.
This seems to give credence to the interpretation that each individual
rule is the one that defines it.
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 10:19 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? Are
you planning to battle your spces? discuss today
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
No, you're getting the formula wrong. Rule 879 says that "If no other
rule defines the quorum of an Agoran Decision, the quorum for that
decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the Agoran
Decision to adopt a proposal that had been most recently resolved at
the time of that decision's initiation, the whole rounded to the
nearest integer (breaking ties upward)." 6.66 rounded to the nearest
integer is 7. 7.333 rounded to the nearest integer is also 7.
The only situation where something gets rounded up is if there's a tie
(so, like at 6.5). Ties are impossible when you're multiplying by 2/3;
I guess I wasn't thinking very clearly when I wrote the proposal to
change the quorum default. :)
-Aris
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:15 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Why wouldn't the quorum change? The highest numbered proposal in the
> purported resolution had 10 voters. With Telnaior, it would go to 11.
> By Rule 879, quorum is ceil(2/3*(# voters on last resolved decision to
> adopt a proposal)). 10*2/3=6.666..., which goes to 7. With Telnaior,
> 11*2/3=7.333..., which goes to 8.
>
> Am I making a wrong assumption about which proposal resolution counts as
> the most recent?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/22/19 10:07 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> >> Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a
> >> reply to the thread):
> > Thanks for pointing that out; you're right that I didn't notice. On
> > this occasion, quorum is unchanged due to the way the rounding works
> > out.
> >
> >>> CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
> >>> outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
> >>
> >> Also, what exactly is your "standard reward policy"?
> > A small reward of coins and my sincere gratitude.
> >
> > -Aris
> >> On 6/22/19 9:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>> Here's a draft of my Promotor report. My standard reward policy for
> >>> catching errors is in effect.
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> >>> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> >>> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> >>> quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> >>> options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> >>> conditional votes).
> >>>
> >>> IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> >>> ---
> >>> 8188 G.3.0 Blanket Denial
> >>> 8189 Jason Cobb1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
> >>> 8190 G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
> >>> 8191 R. Lee1.1 Spaceships
> >>> 8192 G.1.0 auctions have fees
> >>>
> >>> The proposal pool is currently empty.
> >>>
> >>> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
> >>>
> >>> //
> >>> ID: 8188
> >>> Title: Blanket Denial
> >>> Adoption index: 3.0
> >>> Author: G.
> >>> Co-authors:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
> >>> do one of the following in a timely fashion:
> >>> with
> >>> do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
> >>> that clearly cites the claim of error:
> >>>
> >>> //
> >>> ID: 8189
> >>> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
> >>> Adoption index: 1.7
> >>> Author: Jason Cobb
> >>> Co-authors:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
> >>>
> >>> Replace the text
> >>>
> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
> of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
> proceeding.
> >>> with the text
> >>>
> Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by
> announcement,
> impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a fine
> of
> up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots in the
> fine,
> the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary
> Judgement is
> imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any
> official
> >>> proceeding.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> //
> >>> ID: 8190
> >>> Title: Report Rewards
> >>> Adoption index: 2.0
> >>> Author: G.
> >>> Co-authors: D Margaux
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by prepending the following text to the 1st
> >>> paragraph:
> >>> An Office is a position described as an Office by the Rules.
> >>>
> >>> Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
> >>> * Publishing a duty-fulfilling rep
DIS: Seriously, what do you guys think about the Revival of Spaaace?
Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? Are you planning to battle your spces? discuss today -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
"ha who reads things when they can just complain instead" - me
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:13 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought Proposal 8181 did that?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > uh nobody's fixed the Cold Hand of Justice?
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:07 PM Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jason Cobb
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G
> (in a
> > > > reply to the thread):
> > >
> > > Thanks for pointing that out; you're right that I didn't notice. On
> > > this occasion, quorum is unchanged due to the way the rounding works
> > > out.
> > >
> > > > > CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change
> the
> > > > > outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, what exactly is your "standard reward policy"?
> > >
> > > A small reward of coins and my sincere gratitude.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > > >
> > > > On 6/22/19 9:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > > Here's a draft of my Promotor report. My standard reward policy for
> > > > > catching errors is in effect.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Aris
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> > > > > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> > > > > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> > > > > quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> > > > > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> > > > > conditional votes).
> > > > >
> > > > > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> > > > >
> > >
> ---
> > > > > 8188 G.3.0 Blanket Denial
> > > > > 8189 Jason Cobb1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
> > > > > 8190 G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
> > > > > 8191 R. Lee1.1 Spaceships
> > > > > 8192 G.1.0 auctions have fees
> > > > >
> > > > > The proposal pool is currently empty.
> > > > >
> > > > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> //
> > > > > ID: 8188
> > > > > Title: Blanket Denial
> > > > > Adoption index: 3.0
> > > > > Author: G.
> > > > > Co-authors:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
> > > > >do one of the following in a timely fashion:
> > > > > with
> > > > >do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
> > > > >that clearly cites the claim of error:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> //
> > > > > ID: 8189
> > > > > Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
> > > > > Adoption index: 1.7
> > > > > Author: Jason Cobb
> > > > > Co-authors:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > Replace the text
> > > > >
> > > > >> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> > > > >> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a
> fine
> > > > >> of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
> > > > >> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
> > > > >> proceeding.
> > > > > with the text
> > > > >
> > > > >> Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by
> > > announcement,
> > > > >> impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a
> > > fine of
> > > > >> up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots
> in
> > > the fine,
> > > > >> the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary
> > > Judgement is
> > > > >> imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to
> any
> > > official
> > > > > proceeding.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> //
> > > > > ID: 8190
> > > > > Title: Report Rewards
> > > > > Adoption index: 2.0
> > > > > Author: G.
> > > > > Co-authors: D Margaux
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by prepending the following text to the
> 1st
> > > > > paragraph:
> > > > >An Office is a position described as an Office by the Rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
> > > > >* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
> > > > > this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
> > > > > published in a week and the first monthly report published in
> a
> > > > > month.
> > > > > with:
> > > > >* Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that
> > > > > publication was the first report published for that office in
> > > > > the relevant time period (week or month re
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Why wouldn't the quorum change? The highest numbered proposal in the
purported resolution had 10 voters. With Telnaior, it would go to 11.
By Rule 879, quorum is ceil(2/3*(# voters on last resolved decision to
adopt a proposal)). 10*2/3=6.666..., which goes to 7. With Telnaior,
11*2/3=7.333..., which goes to 8.
Am I making a wrong assumption about which proposal resolution counts as
the most recent?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 10:07 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a
reply to the thread):
Thanks for pointing that out; you're right that I didn't notice. On
this occasion, quorum is unchanged due to the way the rounding works
out.
CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
Also, what exactly is your "standard reward policy"?
A small reward of coins and my sincere gratitude.
-Aris
On 6/22/19 9:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Here's a draft of my Promotor report. My standard reward policy for
catching errors is in effect.
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).
IDAuthor(s) AITitle
---
8188 G.3.0 Blanket Denial
8189 Jason Cobb1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
8190 G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
8191 R. Lee1.1 Spaceships
8192 G.1.0 auctions have fees
The proposal pool is currently empty.
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//
ID: 8188
Title: Blanket Denial
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
do one of the following in a timely fashion:
with
do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
that clearly cites the claim of error:
//
ID: 8189
Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
Replace the text
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
with the text
Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by announcement,
impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a fine of
up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots in the fine,
the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary Judgement is
imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
//
ID: 8190
Title: Report Rewards
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: G.
Co-authors: D Margaux
Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by prepending the following text to the 1st
paragraph:
An Office is a position described as an Office by the Rules.
Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
published in a week and the first monthly report published in a
month.
with:
* Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that
publication was the first report published for that office in
the relevant time period (week or month respectively) to fulfill
an official weekly or monthly duty: 5 coins.
//
ID: 8191
Title: Spaceships
Adoption index: 1.1
Author: R. Lee
Co-authors:
Create a spaceship in the possession of each player without a
spaceship
//
ID: 8192
Title: auctions have fees
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:
[The payment rule for auctions just says that if you happen to have an
auction debt, if you pay Agora under any circumstances, it triggers
stuff. This means, if someone happens to have two auction debts, they
can make one payment and it would count for both. This brings things
into line.]
Amend Rule 2551 (Auction End) by replacing:
The winner of a lot SHALL pay the Auctioneer the number of the
Auction's currency equal to eir bid, in a single payment, in a
timely fashion.
with:
The winner of the lot SHALL,
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
I thought Proposal 8181 did that?
-Aris
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> uh nobody's fixed the Cold Hand of Justice?
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:07 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> > >
> > > Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a
> > > reply to the thread):
> >
> > Thanks for pointing that out; you're right that I didn't notice. On
> > this occasion, quorum is unchanged due to the way the rounding works
> > out.
> >
> > > > CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
> > > > outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
> > >
> > >
> > > Also, what exactly is your "standard reward policy"?
> >
> > A small reward of coins and my sincere gratitude.
> >
> > -Aris
> > >
> > > On 6/22/19 9:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > Here's a draft of my Promotor report. My standard reward policy for
> > > > catching errors is in effect.
> > > >
> > > > -Aris
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> > > > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> > > > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> > > > quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> > > > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> > > > conditional votes).
> > > >
> > > > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> > > >
> > ---
> > > > 8188 G.3.0 Blanket Denial
> > > > 8189 Jason Cobb1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
> > > > 8190 G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
> > > > 8191 R. Lee1.1 Spaceships
> > > > 8192 G.1.0 auctions have fees
> > > >
> > > > The proposal pool is currently empty.
> > > >
> > > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
> > > >
> > > > //
> > > > ID: 8188
> > > > Title: Blanket Denial
> > > > Adoption index: 3.0
> > > > Author: G.
> > > > Co-authors:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
> > > >do one of the following in a timely fashion:
> > > > with
> > > >do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
> > > >that clearly cites the claim of error:
> > > >
> > > > //
> > > > ID: 8189
> > > > Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
> > > > Adoption index: 1.7
> > > > Author: Jason Cobb
> > > > Co-authors:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
> > > >
> > > > Replace the text
> > > >
> > > >> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> > > >> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
> > > >> of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
> > > >> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
> > > >> proceeding.
> > > > with the text
> > > >
> > > >> Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by
> > announcement,
> > > >> impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a
> > fine of
> > > >> up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots in
> > the fine,
> > > >> the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary
> > Judgement is
> > > >> imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any
> > official
> > > > proceeding.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > //
> > > > ID: 8190
> > > > Title: Report Rewards
> > > > Adoption index: 2.0
> > > > Author: G.
> > > > Co-authors: D Margaux
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by prepending the following text to the 1st
> > > > paragraph:
> > > >An Office is a position described as an Office by the Rules.
> > > >
> > > > Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
> > > >* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
> > > > this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
> > > > published in a week and the first monthly report published in a
> > > > month.
> > > > with:
> > > >* Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that
> > > > publication was the first report published for that office in
> > > > the relevant time period (week or month respectively) to fulfill
> > > > an official weekly or monthly duty: 5 coins.
> > > >
> > > > //
> > > > ID: 8191
> > > > Title: Spaceships
> > > > Adoption index: 1.1
> > > > Author: R. Lee
> > > > Co-authors:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Create a spaceship in the possession of each player without a
> > > > spaceship
> > > >
> > > > /
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
uh nobody's fixed the Cold Hand of Justice?
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:07 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> >
> > Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a
> > reply to the thread):
>
> Thanks for pointing that out; you're right that I didn't notice. On
> this occasion, quorum is unchanged due to the way the rounding works
> out.
>
> > > CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
> > > outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
> >
> >
> > Also, what exactly is your "standard reward policy"?
>
> A small reward of coins and my sincere gratitude.
>
> -Aris
> >
> > On 6/22/19 9:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > Here's a draft of my Promotor report. My standard reward policy for
> > > catching errors is in effect.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > ---
> > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> > > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> > > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> > > quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> > > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> > > conditional votes).
> > >
> > > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> > >
> ---
> > > 8188 G.3.0 Blanket Denial
> > > 8189 Jason Cobb1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
> > > 8190 G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
> > > 8191 R. Lee1.1 Spaceships
> > > 8192 G.1.0 auctions have fees
> > >
> > > The proposal pool is currently empty.
> > >
> > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
> > >
> > > //
> > > ID: 8188
> > > Title: Blanket Denial
> > > Adoption index: 3.0
> > > Author: G.
> > > Co-authors:
> > >
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
> > >do one of the following in a timely fashion:
> > > with
> > >do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
> > >that clearly cites the claim of error:
> > >
> > > //
> > > ID: 8189
> > > Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
> > > Adoption index: 1.7
> > > Author: Jason Cobb
> > > Co-authors:
> > >
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
> > >
> > > Replace the text
> > >
> > >> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> > >> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
> > >> of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
> > >> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
> > >> proceeding.
> > > with the text
> > >
> > >> Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by
> announcement,
> > >> impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a
> fine of
> > >> up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots in
> the fine,
> > >> the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary
> Judgement is
> > >> imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any
> official
> > > proceeding.
> > >
> > >
> > > //
> > > ID: 8190
> > > Title: Report Rewards
> > > Adoption index: 2.0
> > > Author: G.
> > > Co-authors: D Margaux
> > >
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by prepending the following text to the 1st
> > > paragraph:
> > >An Office is a position described as an Office by the Rules.
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
> > >* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
> > > this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
> > > published in a week and the first monthly report published in a
> > > month.
> > > with:
> > >* Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that
> > > publication was the first report published for that office in
> > > the relevant time period (week or month respectively) to fulfill
> > > an official weekly or monthly duty: 5 coins.
> > >
> > > //
> > > ID: 8191
> > > Title: Spaceships
> > > Adoption index: 1.1
> > > Author: R. Lee
> > > Co-authors:
> > >
> > >
> > > Create a spaceship in the possession of each player without a
> > > spaceship
> > >
> > > //
> > > ID: 8192
> > > Title: auctions have fees
> > > Adoption index: 1.0
> > > Author: G.
> > > Co-authors:
> > >
> > >
> > > [The payment rule for auctions just says that if you happen to have an
> > > auction debt, if you pay Agora under any circumstances, it triggers
> > > stuff. This means, if someone
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a
> reply to the thread):
Thanks for pointing that out; you're right that I didn't notice. On
this occasion, quorum is unchanged due to the way the rounding works
out.
> > CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
> > outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
>
>
> Also, what exactly is your "standard reward policy"?
A small reward of coins and my sincere gratitude.
-Aris
>
> On 6/22/19 9:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Here's a draft of my Promotor report. My standard reward policy for
> > catching errors is in effect.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > ---
> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> > quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> > conditional votes).
> >
> > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> > ---
> > 8188 G.3.0 Blanket Denial
> > 8189 Jason Cobb1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
> > 8190 G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
> > 8191 R. Lee1.1 Spaceships
> > 8192 G.1.0 auctions have fees
> >
> > The proposal pool is currently empty.
> >
> > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
> >
> > //
> > ID: 8188
> > Title: Blanket Denial
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: G.
> > Co-authors:
> >
> >
> > Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
> >do one of the following in a timely fashion:
> > with
> >do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
> >that clearly cites the claim of error:
> >
> > //
> > ID: 8189
> > Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
> > Adoption index: 1.7
> > Author: Jason Cobb
> > Co-authors:
> >
> >
> > Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
> >
> > Replace the text
> >
> >> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> >> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
> >> of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
> >> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
> >> proceeding.
> > with the text
> >
> >> Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by announcement,
> >> impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a fine of
> >> up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots in the
> >> fine,
> >> the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary Judgement
> >> is
> >> imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any
> >> official
> > proceeding.
> >
> >
> > //
> > ID: 8190
> > Title: Report Rewards
> > Adoption index: 2.0
> > Author: G.
> > Co-authors: D Margaux
> >
> >
> > Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by prepending the following text to the 1st
> > paragraph:
> >An Office is a position described as an Office by the Rules.
> >
> > Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
> >* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
> > this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
> > published in a week and the first monthly report published in a
> > month.
> > with:
> >* Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that
> > publication was the first report published for that office in
> > the relevant time period (week or month respectively) to fulfill
> > an official weekly or monthly duty: 5 coins.
> >
> > //
> > ID: 8191
> > Title: Spaceships
> > Adoption index: 1.1
> > Author: R. Lee
> > Co-authors:
> >
> >
> > Create a spaceship in the possession of each player without a
> > spaceship
> >
> > //
> > ID: 8192
> > Title: auctions have fees
> > Adoption index: 1.0
> > Author: G.
> > Co-authors:
> >
> >
> > [The payment rule for auctions just says that if you happen to have an
> > auction debt, if you pay Agora under any circumstances, it triggers
> > stuff. This means, if someone happens to have two auction debts, they
> > can make one payment and it would count for both. This brings things
> > into line.]
> >
> > Amend Rule 2551 (Auction End) by replacing:
> >The winner of a lot SHALL pay the Auctioneer the number of the
> >Auction's currency equal to eir bid, in a single payment, in a
> >timely fashion.
> > with:
> >The winner of the lot SHALL,
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a
reply to the thread):
CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
Also, what exactly is your "standard reward policy"?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 9:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Here's a draft of my Promotor report. My standard reward policy for
catching errors is in effect.
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).
IDAuthor(s) AITitle
---
8188 G.3.0 Blanket Denial
8189 Jason Cobb1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
8190 G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
8191 R. Lee1.1 Spaceships
8192 G.1.0 auctions have fees
The proposal pool is currently empty.
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//
ID: 8188
Title: Blanket Denial
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
do one of the following in a timely fashion:
with
do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
that clearly cites the claim of error:
//
ID: 8189
Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
Replace the text
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
with the text
Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by announcement,
impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a fine of
up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots in the fine,
the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary Judgement is
imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
//
ID: 8190
Title: Report Rewards
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: G.
Co-authors: D Margaux
Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by prepending the following text to the 1st
paragraph:
An Office is a position described as an Office by the Rules.
Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
published in a week and the first monthly report published in a
month.
with:
* Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that
publication was the first report published for that office in
the relevant time period (week or month respectively) to fulfill
an official weekly or monthly duty: 5 coins.
//
ID: 8191
Title: Spaceships
Adoption index: 1.1
Author: R. Lee
Co-authors:
Create a spaceship in the possession of each player without a
spaceship
//
ID: 8192
Title: auctions have fees
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:
[The payment rule for auctions just says that if you happen to have an
auction debt, if you pay Agora under any circumstances, it triggers
stuff. This means, if someone happens to have two auction debts, they
can make one payment and it would count for both. This brings things
into line.]
Amend Rule 2551 (Auction End) by replacing:
The winner of a lot SHALL pay the Auctioneer the number of the
Auction's currency equal to eir bid, in a single payment, in a
timely fashion.
with:
The winner of the lot SHALL, in a timely fashion, pay a fee (the
number of the Auction's currency equal to eir bid) to the
Auctioneer in order to satisfy eir auction debt.
[This makes "satisfying eir auction debt" a fee-based action governed
under R2579, which didn't exist when the auction rules were written.
R2579 then takes care of the various CANs and method details. The
transfer of the lots is then a consequence of "satisfying eir auction
debt"].
//
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rule 2479 Cleanup
Sorry! Will do.
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 9:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Note from the Office of the Promotor:
Please don't use the > style quote formatting again. It makes text
formatting a nightmare, and stops me from wrapping lines.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
Oh, I meant to make it say "player" instead of "person who plays the
game" anyway.
I withdraw my most recently submitted proposal (again).
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
Author: Jason Cobb
Adoption Index: 1.7
Text:
{
Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
Replace the text
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
with the text
Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by
announcement,
impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a fine of
up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots in the
fine,
the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary
Judgement is
imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any
official proceeding.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/18/19 7:55 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
Instead of this:
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
I would recommend moving "by announcement" like so:
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, by announcement impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game.
Under the original wording it is ambiguous. Could have been read to say that SJ
could be imposed on a person-who-plays-by-announcement.
On Jun 18, 2019, at 7:32 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Probably a good idea.
I withdraw my most recently submitted proposal.
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.1)
Author: Jason Cobb
Adoption Index: 1.7
Text:
{
Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
Replace the text
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
with the text
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
When e does so, e levies a fine of up to 2 Blots on em. If e
does not specify the number of Blots in the fine, the attempt to
impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary Judgement is
imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to
any official proceeding.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/18/19 7:27 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
You might want to say that e must specify the number of Blots.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:25 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup
Author: Jason Cobb
Adoption Index: 1.7
Text:
{
Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
Replace the text
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
with the text
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
When e does so, e levies a fine of up to 2 Blots on em. Summary
Judgement is imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in
response to any official proceeding.
}
--
Jason Cobb
DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Here's a draft of my Promotor report. My standard reward policy for
catching errors is in effect.
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).
IDAuthor(s) AITitle
---
8188 G.3.0 Blanket Denial
8189 Jason Cobb1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
8190 G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
8191 R. Lee1.1 Spaceships
8192 G.1.0 auctions have fees
The proposal pool is currently empty.
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//
ID: 8188
Title: Blanket Denial
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
do one of the following in a timely fashion:
with
do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
that clearly cites the claim of error:
//
ID: 8189
Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
Replace the text
> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
> of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
> proceeding.
with the text
> Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by announcement,
> impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a fine of
> up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots in the fine,
> the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary Judgement is
> imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
//
ID: 8190
Title: Report Rewards
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: G.
Co-authors: D Margaux
Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by prepending the following text to the 1st
paragraph:
An Office is a position described as an Office by the Rules.
Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
published in a week and the first monthly report published in a
month.
with:
* Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that
publication was the first report published for that office in
the relevant time period (week or month respectively) to fulfill
an official weekly or monthly duty: 5 coins.
//
ID: 8191
Title: Spaceships
Adoption index: 1.1
Author: R. Lee
Co-authors:
Create a spaceship in the possession of each player without a
spaceship
//
ID: 8192
Title: auctions have fees
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:
[The payment rule for auctions just says that if you happen to have an
auction debt, if you pay Agora under any circumstances, it triggers
stuff. This means, if someone happens to have two auction debts, they
can make one payment and it would count for both. This brings things
into line.]
Amend Rule 2551 (Auction End) by replacing:
The winner of a lot SHALL pay the Auctioneer the number of the
Auction's currency equal to eir bid, in a single payment, in a
timely fashion.
with:
The winner of the lot SHALL, in a timely fashion, pay a fee (the
number of the Auction's currency equal to eir bid) to the
Auctioneer in order to satisfy eir auction debt.
[This makes "satisfying eir auction debt" a fee-based action governed
under R2579, which didn't exist when the auction rules were written.
R2579 then takes care of the various CANs and method details. The
transfer of the lots is then a consequence of "satisfying eir auction
debt"].
//
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rule 2479 Cleanup
Note from the Office of the Promotor:
Please don't use the > style quote formatting again. It makes text
formatting a nightmare, and stops me from wrapping lines.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:01 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Oh, I meant to make it say "player" instead of "person who plays the
> game" anyway.
>
>
> I withdraw my most recently submitted proposal (again).
>
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
>
> Author: Jason Cobb
>
> Adoption Index: 1.7
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
>
> Replace the text
>
> > The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> > Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
> > of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
> > Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
> > proceeding.
>
> with the text
>
> > Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by
> > announcement,
> > impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a
> > fine of
> > up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots in
> > the fine,
> > the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary
> > Judgement is
> > imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any
> > official proceeding.
>
> }
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/18/19 7:55 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > Instead of this:
> >
> >> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> >> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
> > I would recommend moving "by announcement" like so:
> >
> >> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, by announcement
> >> impose Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game.
> > Under the original wording it is ambiguous. Could have been read to say
> > that SJ could be imposed on a person-who-plays-by-announcement.
> >
> >> On Jun 18, 2019, at 7:32 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>
> >> Probably a good idea.
> >>
> >> I withdraw my most recently submitted proposal.
> >>
> >>
> >> I submit the following proposal:
> >>
> >> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.1)
> >>
> >> Author: Jason Cobb
> >>
> >> Adoption Index: 1.7
> >>
> >> Text:
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
> >>
> >> Replace the text
> >>
> >>> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> >>> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
> >>> of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
> >>> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
> >>> proceeding.
> >> with the text
> >>
> >>> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> >>> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
> >>> When e does so, e levies a fine of up to 2 Blots on em. If e
> >>> does not specify the number of Blots in the fine, the attempt to
> >>> impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary Judgement is
> >>> imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to
> >>> any official proceeding.
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> Jason Cobb
> >>
> >>> On 6/18/19 7:27 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>> You might want to say that e must specify the number of Blots.
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:25 PM Jason Cobb
> > wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup
>
> Author: Jason Cobb
>
> Adoption Index: 1.7
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
>
> Replace the text
>
> > The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> > Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a
> > fine
> > of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
> > Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
> > proceeding.
> with the text
>
> > The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> > Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
> > When e does so, e levies a fine of up to 2 Blots on em. Summary
> > Judgement is imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in
> > response to any official proceeding.
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 9:58 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a > crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters the > Rules-defined "state" of whether or not they are guilty of a crime. Is > this a valid reading, and is this intended? I'd consider that a definition rather than state. But even if it was state, my intent was that "consists of altering Rules-defined state" (combined with the example) would limit the clause to the action of altering state itself, rather than any action that merely indirectly results in state being altered. However, the negative reception suggests that the new language is not as clear as I thought it was. Back to the drawing board...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
> On Jun 22, 2019, at 11:39 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Or a proposal resolution, for that matter. > > Hey, I'm not late yet! Planning to resolve the outstanding ones today if I can...
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Clarification: performing the action arguably alters the Rules-defined
"state"...
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:58 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a
crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters
the Rules-defined "state" of whether or not they are guilty of a
crime. Is this a valid reading, and is this intended?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 1:50 AM, omd wrote:
Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An action is regulated if it:
(a) consists of altering Rules-defined state (e.g. the act of
flipping a Citizenship switch), or
(b) is a Rules-defined term of art with no inherent meaning
(e.g. the act of "distributing" a proposal).
Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
the following:
For regulated actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends on
the mechanism(s) the rules define for performing the action. If
no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
perform the action.
[[[
More explicit than my last proposal; still a (slight) net decrease in
word count. I like this version.
The new definition does not explicitly address 'actions' that consist
only *in part* of altering Rules-defined state, e.g. "wearing a hat
and flipping a Citizenship switch". I think not addressing them is
actually correct. "Putting on a hat and then flipping a Citizenship
switch" has a ground-truth definition, which inherently determines
whether and when it possible to take that action: namely, it's defined
as {putting on a hat (which itself has a ground-truth definition)} and
then {flipping a Citizenship switch (which is defined in the Rules)}.
The Rules should not, and perhaps cannot, define it as something other
than the combination of those two things. Instead, they just
indirectly determine the possibility of the whole by defining the
possibility of the part.
]]]
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a
crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters the
Rules-defined "state" of whether or not they are guilty of a crime. Is
this a valid reading, and is this intended?
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 1:50 AM, omd wrote:
Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An action is regulated if it:
(a) consists of altering Rules-defined state (e.g. the act of
flipping a Citizenship switch), or
(b) is a Rules-defined term of art with no inherent meaning
(e.g. the act of "distributing" a proposal).
Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after
5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
the following:
For regulated actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends on
the mechanism(s) the rules define for performing the action. If
no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
perform the action.
[[[
More explicit than my last proposal; still a (slight) net decrease in
word count. I like this version.
The new definition does not explicitly address 'actions' that consist
only *in part* of altering Rules-defined state, e.g. "wearing a hat
and flipping a Citizenship switch". I think not addressing them is
actually correct. "Putting on a hat and then flipping a Citizenship
switch" has a ground-truth definition, which inherently determines
whether and when it possible to take that action: namely, it's defined
as {putting on a hat (which itself has a ground-truth definition)} and
then {flipping a Citizenship switch (which is defined in the Rules)}.
The Rules should not, and perhaps cannot, define it as something other
than the combination of those two things. Instead, they just
indirectly determine the possibility of the whole by defining the
possibility of the part.
]]]
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
I have to agree with Aris here. It doesn't create any rule conflicts at all. Besides, is it really that bad if the method has to be approved? I don't understand why you want to change this part of the rule. On 6/22/19 1:37 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:16 AM omd wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant wrote: Also, the bit in Mother May I should still go in the regulated actions rule. Let's keep all the regulated action stuff in one place. I really like the current phrasing; it's extremely elegant (honestly, more so than the one here), and no one has pointed out a breakage in it. It's the "A regulated action CAN only be performed as described by the rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action." part. The main issue with the existing wording is that it conflicts with any rule that says that an action CAN be performed without giving a method, yet it doesn't include a precedence clause, so it fails to work in some cases. This could be fixed by adding a precedence clause, but there would still be issues with rules which contain precedence clauses themselves for whatever reason (and have Power >= 3). I believe my wording is more elegant because it avoids the conflict. It doesn't cause a conflict though. All it does is state that for a person to be able to take an action via a method, that method must be explicitly approved. It's not that it's trying to override the rule; it's just changing from an obvious presumption to a less obvious but still reasonable rule of interpretation. It just means "don't try to read in a method that doesn't exist in the source". Your wording is IMO more complicated and less clean feeling. -Aris -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
Or a proposal resolution, for that matter. On 6/22/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 6/21/2019 7:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I refuse to use it to help in scams, even when people offer bribes. It's true - I've tried. Speaking of which, I'm hoping to see a proposal distribution this week - there's some stuff in there I'm concerned about on timeliness. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
On 6/21/2019 7:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I refuse to use it to help in scams, even when people offer bribes. It's true - I've tried. Speaking of which, I'm hoping to see a proposal distribution this week - there's some stuff in there I'm concerned about on timeliness.
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:16 AM omd wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > Also, the bit in Mother May I should still go in the regulated actions > > rule. Let's keep all the regulated action stuff in one place. I really like > > the current phrasing; it's extremely elegant (honestly, more so than the > > one here), and no one has pointed out a breakage in it. It's the "A > > regulated action CAN only be performed as described by the rules, and only > > using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the > > given action." part. > > The main issue with the existing wording is that it conflicts with any > rule that says that an action CAN be performed without giving a > method, yet it doesn't include a precedence clause, so it fails to > work in some cases. This could be fixed by adding a precedence > clause, but there would still be issues with rules which contain > precedence clauses themselves for whatever reason (and have Power >= > 3). I believe my wording is more elegant because it avoids the > conflict. It doesn't cause a conflict though. All it does is state that for a person to be able to take an action via a method, that method must be explicitly approved. It's not that it's trying to override the rule; it's just changing from an obvious presumption to a less obvious but still reasonable rule of interpretation. It just means "don't try to read in a method that doesn't exist in the source". Your wording is IMO more complicated and less clean feeling. -Aris
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > Also, the bit in Mother May I should still go in the regulated actions > rule. Let's keep all the regulated action stuff in one place. I really like > the current phrasing; it's extremely elegant (honestly, more so than the > one here), and no one has pointed out a breakage in it. It's the "A > regulated action CAN only be performed as described by the rules, and only > using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the > given action." part. The main issue with the existing wording is that it conflicts with any rule that says that an action CAN be performed without giving a method, yet it doesn't include a precedence clause, so it fails to work in some cases. This could be fixed by adding a precedence clause, but there would still be issues with rules which contain precedence clauses themselves for whatever reason (and have Power >= 3). I believe my wording is more elegant because it avoids the conflict.
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
Does any language have inherent meaning? :thinking: On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 5:07 PM omd wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I think you’re making it worse rather than better. I’d drop the “with no > > inherent meaning” bit; a judge could easily interpret it to forbid > > "distribute" being a term of art, since distributing something has > meaning. > > The point of that phrase is to exclude terms of art that refer to > preexisting actions, such as sending a public message. > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > I think you’re making it worse rather than better. I’d drop the “with no > inherent meaning” bit; a judge could easily interpret it to forbid > "distribute" being a term of art, since distributing something has meaning. The point of that phrase is to exclude terms of art that refer to preexisting actions, such as sending a public message.
