Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486
On 2020-08-22 21:10, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 8/22/2020 11:05 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: * ASSUMPTIONS * This report assumes that shelvacu has not had any Agoran I wonder if that counts as a claim of error and prevents self-ratification that way. Claims of error (or 'issuing doubts') are by announcement, and I don't think this qualifies as 'unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it'. Good point. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486
On 8/22/2020 11:05 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > * ASSUMPTIONS > * This report assumes that shelvacu has not had any Agoran > > I wonder if that counts as a claim of error and prevents > self-ratification that way. > Claims of error (or 'issuing doubts') are by announcement, and I don't think this qualifies as 'unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it'.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 486
On 2020-08-16 01:29, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 8/15/2020 5:54 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > Nevermind, I should probably read more than just one email before > replying like this. I called a CoE to make sure it wouldn't self-ratify. I don't think just listing the assumption does that. In the past, when I've published reports with assumptions like that, I've immediately CoEed them for that reason. >>> >>> You can do it without a seperate CoE, if you explicitly mark which >>> values are provisional. IIRC there's a precedent somewhere that says >>> that provisional values are excluded from self ratification. >>> >>> -Aris >> >> That's interesting. If someone can find that CFJ, it would be good to >> add it to R2201's annotations. >> >> I find it surprising. Especially since I think we consider these >> documents sufficient for recordkeeping duties. >> > > It doesn't wort that way. Self-ratificatoin and CoEs operate on the level > of "report section" (i.e. 'the portion of the report' that is defined by > the rules as self-ratifying). You either doubt the whole section or none > of it: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3658 > > -G. That still leaves open the question of whether a caveat in a report can prevent self-ratification. It just means the prevention would have to be all-or-nothing (for one class of asset). The Treasuror's report included this: * ASSUMPTIONS * This report assumes that shelvacu has not had any Agoran I wonder if that counts as a claim of error and prevents self-ratification that way. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
> // > ID: 8491 Wrong ID > Title: Unscoped RWO > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Jason > Co-authors: -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday
If you meant to copy your own message to a public forum, it's traditional to say TTttPF (this time to the public forum, I guess). nttpf (not to the pf) is for telling others. On 2020-08-20 04:00, shelvacu via agora-business wrote: > nttpf > > On 8/19/20 8:57 PM, shelvacu via agora-discussion wrote: >> Happy birthday! I grant you 3 coins >> >> Disclaimer: I'm not 100% sure this works, the agoran day may have >> already passed. >> >> On 8/19/20 1:20 PM, Nathan S via agora-business wrote: >>> Hello! >>> I would like to announce my 0th Agoran Birthday! Included below is a >>> slice of ASCII cake for you to enjoy! >>> >>> >>> ( >>> >>> (&) >>> # >>> _ .--"#"`--._ >>> * .` # `. ~ * >>> : # : >>> ~ :. .: * >>> * | `-.__ __.-' | * >>> | `"""` | * >>> * | |_||\ | )| )\ / | >>> | | ||-\| | | | ~ >>> ~ * | | * >>> | | )|| )-|-|_|| \|\ \ / | * >>> * _.-| | )|| \ | | || /|-\ | |-._ >>> .' '. .' `. * >>> : `-.__ To: Nathan __.-' : >>> `. `"""` .' >>> `-.._ _..-' >>> `---` >>> Cake Art: JGS -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Proto-tournament: Nomaoic
On 8/19/20 10:02 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > I wrote this ruleset up a while ago, and there's been some interest when I > brought it up on the discord, so I figured I'd bring it up again. I'll set it > up as a free tournament soon, but wanted to get some feedback first. That > being said, my preference would be to do relatively minimal iteration on the > ruleset before we start playing, because, you know, nomic. > > Gaelan > > --- > > [TL;DR: Suber Nomic, but the ruleset isn’t published and proposals are > private. The intention is that you’d make your proposal and share the text > with just enough people to get a majority voting for it.] > > Initial Set of Rules > Immutable Rules > 101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the > form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in > effect when the tournament begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 > (immutable) and 201-213 (mutable). > > 102. Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are > mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from > immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of > their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of > their numbers. > > 103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or > amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an > amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule > into a mutable rule or vice versa. > > 104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will > be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes. > > 105. Every player is an eligible voter. > > 106. All proposed rule-changes shall be sent to the Gamemaster before they > are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which > they were voted on. > > 107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion > of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. > No rule-change may have retroactive application. > > 108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The > numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way > shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is > adopted. > > If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal > to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of > the proposal to amend or transmute it. If an amendment is amended or > repealed, the entire rule of which it is a part receives the number of the > proposal to amend or repeal the amendment. > > 109. Rule-changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be > adopted if and only if three quarters of the eligible voters, rounded up, > vote for it. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated > explicitly in a proposal to take effect. > > 110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the immutable > rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely void. For the > purposes of this rule a proposal to transmute an immutable rule does not > "conflict" with that immutable rule. > > 111. The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from > achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the > means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner > when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be > amended or repealed. When a player wins, the Gamemaster shall announce this > fact, and the tournament ends with that player as the winner. > > 112. A player always has the option to forfeit the tournament rather than > continue to play or incur a tournament penalty. No penalty worse than losing, > in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed. > > 113. There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of > rule-changes must never become completely impermissible. > > 114. Rule-changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule-changes are > as permissible as other rule-changes. Even rule-changes that amend or repeal > their own authority are permissible. No rule-change or type of move is > impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of > a rule. > > 115. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a rule is permitted and > unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the rules, which is > permitted only when a rule or set of rules explicitly or implicitly permits > it. > > 116. All judgements about the legality of a move or the interpretation or > application of a rule shall be made by the Gamemaster. > > Mutable Rules > 201. Players may take turns at any time, but may not do so less than 23 hours > after a previous turn and must
DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Here's my draft. I was going to try to send it in earlier, but the week was a bit of a mess (a lot of them seem to be lately) and it didn't happen. -Aris --- PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on 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). ID Author(s)AITitle --- 8490* Jason3.0 Functional Emergency Regulations 8491#^ ATMunn 2.0 Minor Speaker fix 8492*^ Jason3.0 Unscoped RWO The proposal pool contains the following proposals: Author(s)AITitle --- R. Lee 1.0 why are we passing these Legend: * : Democratic proposal. # : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber. e : Economy ministry proposal. f : Efficiency ministry proposal. j : Justice ministry proposal. l : Legislation ministry proposal. p : Participation ministry proposal. ^ : Sponsored proposal. The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where the information shown below differs from the information shown above, the information shown above shall control. // ID: 8490 Title: Functional Emergency Regulations Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Jason Co-authors: Amend Rule 2614 by appending the following sentence to the paragraph beginning "The Prime Minister CAN, in an emergency message and with 3 Agoran consent": "To the extent explicitly permitted by this rule, Emergency Regulations are always taking effect." [Right now, Emergency Regulations CAN do some stuff, but they never actually take effect to do it.] // ID: 8491 Title: Minor Speaker fix Adoption index: 2.0 Author: ATMunn Co-authors: Amend Rule 103 "The Speaker" by appending the following sentence to the paragraph beginning "If the office of Speaker has been held continuously": Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Speaker CANNOT object to an intent by any player to do so. [Explanation: Currently, if the Speaker has been Speaker for at least 90 days, e can be replaced with support. However, the Speaker has the power to stop any intent, even one that is with support, by objecting to it. This would mean that the Speaker cannot be removed by this method. The office can still be reappointed by the Prime Minister if another player wins the game, but as is, the 90+ days method is relatively obsolete. The fix is to either remove the feature altogether or fix it, and I think it's a nice feature, so I proposed this fix. I've also just managed to make an explanation about 3 times as long as the actual proposal. Oops.] // ID: 8491 Title: Unscoped RWO Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Jason Co-authors: Amend Rule 2202 by replacing the paragraph beginning "A player CAN" with the following: "A player CAN, without objection, ratify a specified public document." // Title: why are we passing these Adoption index: 1.0 Author: R. Lee Co-authors: If R. Lee has published a doument to the public forum labelled DOING STUFF before the end of the voting period of this proposal, make the changes specified in that document. //
