DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
Here’s a revised proto proposal for cleaning up dependent actions. I think it’s markup compliant and addresses Gaelan’s comments. Any further comments? Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act Author: D Margaux Co-author: Gaelan AI: 3 Retitle Rule 1728 to “Dependent Action Methods.” Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following: { The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified): 1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with N = 1); 2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1); 3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1; 4. With Notice; or 5. With T Notice, where T is a time period. } Enact a new rule (power=3) entitled “Performing a Dependent Action” with this text: { A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined in Rule 1728 thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all of the following are true: 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent that unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken and the method(s) to be used (including the value of N and/or T for each method); 2. The announcement referenced in paragraph (1) of this Rule was made: * within the 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed With N Support; * between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice; or * between T and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed With T Notice; 3. At least one of the following is true: * the performer is the initiator; * the initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer; or * the initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it; 4. Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules; and 5. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in the announcement of intent referenced in paragraph (1) of this Rule. The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters and objectors if the action is to be taken with Agoran Consent. }
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
On 2/8/19 6:56 PM, D. Margaux wrote: On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Unfortunately, Markdown is rather limited in the types of lists it implements. It can do 1., 2., 3., but unless you have an extended markdown, it does not recognise parenthesized numbers or any kind of letters. It does support *, -, and + for unordered lists. We can either have different lists or we can stop trying to maintain Markdown support. I think we could make it markdown compliant, and still formatted reasonably well, if we break it into two rules. I’m happy to take a shot at drafting that unless people are opposed to that idea. This isn't even the only rule that suffers with same-style sublists. Rule 1023, 2201, and most likely others have numbered sublists inside numbered sublists. One easy option is to replace some of the lists with bulleted lists. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:47 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Actually, the markdown-compliance has been broken for a while, for example by > Rule 2531 as of revision 3. Ha! That was my fault too. I introduced those formatting issues. > On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Unfortunately, Markdown is rather limited in the types of lists it > implements. It can do 1., 2., 3., but unless you have an extended markdown, > it does not recognise parenthesized numbers or any kind of letters. It does > support *, -, and + for unordered lists. > > We can either have different lists or we can stop trying to maintain Markdown > support. I think we could make it markdown compliant, and still formatted reasonably well, if we break it into two rules. I’m happy to take a shot at drafting that unless people are opposed to that idea.
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
Unfortunately, Markdown is rather limited in the types of lists it implements. It can do 1., 2., 3., but unless you have an extended markdown, it does not recognise parenthesized numbers or any kind of letters. It does support *, -, and + for unordered lists. We can either have different lists or we can stop trying to maintain Markdown support. On 2/8/19 6:39 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I think it’s confusing also because there is a second level list that uses the same numbering as the two top-level lists. Is that not possible to change? Maybe we could split the rule into two rules, which would fix the issue of having two top level lists with the same numbering system. But that wouldn’t fix the second level list. Or maybe no one else is as bothered by the formatting of this rule as I am...? On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:19 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine, it’s not a dealbreaker for me. Gaelan On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number of formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I don't quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with the confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme. I suspect this proposal breaks that. Greetings, Ørjan. On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan identified. I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe, under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior. So, arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than 14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the first paragraph (1). I also think the current dependent action rule is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to improve readability. I think part of the reason the bug was able to slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to parse. Comments welcome. I won't be offended if people say that they don't want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to read. Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act Author: D Margaux Co-author: Gaelan AI: 3 Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following: { (a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified): 1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with N = 1); 2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1); 3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1; 4. With Notice; or 5. With T Notice, where T is a time period. (b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all of the following are true: 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action; 2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice; 3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform the action between T and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed With T Notice; 4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken and method(s) to be used (including the value of N and/or T for each method); 5. At least one of the following is true: A. The performer is the initiator; B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer; or C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it, 6. Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules; and 7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3). (c) The actor SHOULD publish a list
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
Actually, the markdown-compliance has been broken for a while, for example by Rule 2531 as of revision 3. On 2/8/19 6:19 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine, it’s not a dealbreaker for me. Gaelan On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number of formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I don't quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with the confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme. I suspect this proposal breaks that. Greetings, Ørjan. On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan identified. I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe, under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior. So, arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than 14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the first paragraph (1). I also think the current dependent action rule is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to improve readability. I think part of the reason the bug was able to slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to parse. Comments welcome. I won't be offended if people say that they don't want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to read. Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act Author: D Margaux Co-author: Gaelan AI: 3 Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following: { (a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified): 1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with N = 1); 2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1); 3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1; 4. With Notice; or 5. With T Notice, where T is a time period. (b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all of the following are true: 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action; 2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice; 3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform the action between T and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed With T Notice; 4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken and method(s) to be used (including the value of N and/or T for each method); 5. At least one of the following is true: A. The performer is the initiator; B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer; or C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it, 6. Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules; and 7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3). (c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on objections. } -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
I think it’s confusing also because there is a second level list that uses the same numbering as the two top-level lists. Is that not possible to change? Maybe we could split the rule into two rules, which would fix the issue of having two top level lists with the same numbering system. But that wouldn’t fix the second level list. Or maybe no one else is as bothered by the formatting of this rule as I am...? > On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:19 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses > it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine, it’s > not a dealbreaker for me. > > Gaelan > >> On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> >> I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number of >> formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I don't >> quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with the >> confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme. I suspect >> this proposal breaks that. >> >> Greetings, >> Ørjan. >> >>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: >>> >>> Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan >>> identified. I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe, >>> under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the >>> player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior. So, >>> arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than >>> 14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the >>> first paragraph (1). I also think the current dependent action rule >>> is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to >>> improve readability. I think part of the reason the bug was able to >>> slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to >>> parse. >>> >>> Comments welcome. I won't be offended if people say that they don't >>> want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to >>> read. >>> >>> Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act >>> Author: D Margaux >>> Co-author: Gaelan >>> AI: 3 >>> >>> Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following: >>> >>> { >>> >>> (a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent >>> actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified): >>> >>> 1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater >>> than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with >>> N = 1); >>> >>> 2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With >>> Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1); >>> >>> 3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 >>> with a minimum of 1; >>> >>> 4. With Notice; or >>> >>> 5. With T Notice, where T is a time period. >>> >>> (b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform >>> an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in >>> section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if >>> all of the following are true: >>> >>> 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to >>> perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action; >>> >>> 2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform >>> the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if >>> the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N >>> Agoran Consent, or With Notice; >>> >>> 3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform >>> the action between T and 14 days preceding the action, >>> if the action is to be performed With T Notice; >>> >>> 4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any >>> applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or >>> (b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without >>> obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken >>> and method(s) to be used (including the value of >>> N and/or T for each method); >>> >>> 5. At least one of the following is true: >>> >>>A. The performer is the initiator; >>> >>>B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action >>> due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the >>> performer; or >>> >>>C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action, >>> the action depends on support, the performer has >>> supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the >>> performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from >>> performing it, >>> >>> 6. Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined >>>by other rules; and >>> >>> 7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in >>> the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any >>> applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or >>> (b)(3). >>> >>> (c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine, it’s not a dealbreaker for me. Gaelan > On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number of > formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I don't > quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with the > confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme. I suspect > this proposal breaks that. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > >> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: >> >> Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan >> identified. I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe, >> under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the >> player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior. So, >> arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than >> 14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the >> first paragraph (1). I also think the current dependent action rule >> is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to >> improve readability. I think part of the reason the bug was able to >> slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to >> parse. >> >> Comments welcome. I won't be offended if people say that they don't >> want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to >> read. >> >> Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act >> Author: D Margaux >> Co-author: Gaelan >> AI: 3 >> >> Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following: >> >> { >> >> (a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent >> actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified): >> >> 1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater >> than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with >> N = 1); >> >> 2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With >> Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1); >> >> 3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 >> with a minimum of 1; >> >> 4. With Notice; or >> >> 5. With T Notice, where T is a time period. >> >> (b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform >> an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in >> section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if >> all of the following are true: >> >> 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to >> perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action; >> >> 2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform >> the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if >> the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N >> Agoran Consent, or With Notice; >> >> 3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform >> the action between T and 14 days preceding the action, >> if the action is to be performed With T Notice; >> >> 4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any >> applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or >> (b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without >> obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken >> and method(s) to be used (including the value of >> N and/or T for each method); >> >> 5. At least one of the following is true: >> >> A. The performer is the initiator; >> >> B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action >>due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the >>performer; or >> >> C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action, >>the action depends on support, the performer has >>supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the >>performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from >>performing it, >> >>6. Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined >> by other rules; and >> >>7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in >>the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any >>applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or >>(b)(3). >> >> (c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action >> depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on >> objections. >> >> } >>
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number of formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I don't quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with the confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme. I suspect this proposal breaks that. Greetings, Ørjan. On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan identified. I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe, under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior. So, arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than 14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the first paragraph (1). I also think the current dependent action rule is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to improve readability. I think part of the reason the bug was able to slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to parse. Comments welcome. I won't be offended if people say that they don't want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to read. Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act Author: D Margaux Co-author: Gaelan AI: 3 Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following: { (a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified): 1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with N = 1); 2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1); 3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1; 4. With Notice; or 5. With T Notice, where T is a time period. (b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all of the following are true: 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action; 2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice; 3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform the action between T and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed With T Notice; 4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken and method(s) to be used (including the value of N and/or T for each method); 5. At least one of the following is true: A. The performer is the initiator; B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer; or C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it, 6. Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules; and 7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3). (c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on objections. }
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
Ooh, I wonder if it would be useful to have a “referendum” mechanism for non-binding* decisions. Maybe it’s overkill. Gaelan * Theresa Cannot’s opinion nonwithstanding > On Feb 8, 2019, at 11:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:30 AM Gaelan Steele wrote: >> Inline comments. Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m >> required to propose a patch, but someone beat me to it. > > No worries from me! I think participation in someone else's fix > proposal counts. > > I'm thinking the best way to promote discussion about the winners is a > (non-binding and informal) ranked choice Agoran decision - I'd list > out the entries and summarize them (i.e. my opinion on the plusses and > minuses of each) to start out the voting, without being too precise > about "points" (does that sound like a good process?) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:30 AM Gaelan Steele wrote: > Inline comments. Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m > required to propose a patch, but someone beat me to it. No worries from me! I think participation in someone else's fix proposal counts. I'm thinking the best way to promote discussion about the winners is a (non-binding and informal) ranked choice Agoran decision - I'd list out the entries and summarize them (i.e. my opinion on the plusses and minuses of each) to start out the voting, without being too precise about "points" (does that sound like a good process?)
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
On Feb 8, 2019, at 1:38 PM, D. Margaux wrote: >>> 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to >>> perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action; >> >> Since 2 says 4-14, we could make this apply only to support and such. > > That would definitely work. Leaving it this way makes it more extensible if > other methods are devised in the future, but that seems unlikely and more > requirements would be added anyway. Actually, Gaelan’s comment makes me think there’s an even cleaner way to put it, by combining (b)(1) to (b)(4) as follows: (b) [the intent works if all of this is satisfied:] 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent that unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken and the method(s) to be used (including the value of N and/or T for each method); 2. The announcement referenced in (b)(1) was made: A. within the 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed With N Support; B. between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice; or, C. between T and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed With T Notice; ... #. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in the announcement of intent referenced in (b)(1).
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m required to > propose a patch, but someone beat me to it. > > Sorry! This wasn’t meant to interfere with that. I’ve been annoyed by the formatting of this rule for a while, and this seemed like a good opportunity to fix. I think the contest requirement should be deemed met if you adopt this fix as your proposal (or propose another one if you don’t like it). > >> >> 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to >> perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action; > > Since 2 says 4-14, we could make this apply only to support and such. That would definitely work. Leaving it this way makes it more extensible if other methods are devised in the future, but that seems unlikely and more requirements would be added anyway. > >> >> >> (c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action >> depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on >> objections. > > Do we even want to keep this? Nobody does it. Yeah—this seems to be routinely ignored. And probably unnecessary for most situations, except for Agoran Consent, where it may not be obvious whether the required ratio is met. What would people think about limiting this to Agoran Consent, or dispensing with it altogether?
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
Inline comments. Also, G, this is a little problematic for the contest—I’m required to propose a patch, but someone beat me to it. Gaelan > On Feb 8, 2019, at 9:45 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan > identified. I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe, > under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the > player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior. So, > arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than > 14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the > first paragraph (1). I also think the current dependent action rule > is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to > improve readability. I think part of the reason the bug was able to > slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to > parse. > > Comments welcome. I won't be offended if people say that they don't > want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to > read. > > Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act > Author: D Margaux > Co-author: Gaelan > AI: 3 > > Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following: > > { > > (a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent > actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified): > >1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater > than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with > N = 1); > >2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With > Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1); > >3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 > with a minimum of 1; > >4. With Notice; or > >5. With T Notice, where T is a time period. > > (b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform > an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in > section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if > all of the following are true: > >1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to >perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action; Since 2 says 4-14, we could make this apply only to support and such. > >2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform >the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if >the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N >Agoran Consent, or With Notice; > >3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform >the action between T and 14 days preceding the action, >if the action is to be performed With T Notice; > >4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any >applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or >(b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without >obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken >and method(s) to be used (including the value of >N and/or T for each method); One could argue that this doesn’t require the announcement itself to be conspicuous. So you could bury the announcement as long as once someone finds the announcement the intended action is very clear. > >5. At least one of the following is true: > > A. The performer is the initiator; > > B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action > due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the > performer; or > > C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action, > the action depends on support, the performer has > supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the > performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from > performing it, > > 6. Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined > by other rules; and > > 7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in > the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any > applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or > (b)(3). > > (c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action > depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on > objections. Do we even want to keep this? Nobody does it. > > } Gaelan
DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan identified. I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe, under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior. So, arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than 14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the first paragraph (1). I also think the current dependent action rule is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to improve readability. I think part of the reason the bug was able to slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to parse. Comments welcome. I won't be offended if people say that they don't want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to read. Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act Author: D Margaux Co-author: Gaelan AI: 3 Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following: { (a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified): 1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with N = 1); 2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1); 3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1; 4. With Notice; or 5. With T Notice, where T is a time period. (b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all of the following are true: 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action; 2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice; 3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform the action between T and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed With T Notice; 4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken and method(s) to be used (including the value of N and/or T for each method); 5. At least one of the following is true: A. The performer is the initiator; B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer; or C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it, 6. Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules; and 7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3). (c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on objections. }