DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-proposal: Chambers

2008-06-17 Thread Roger Hicks
Proto (take II):

Chambers
AI: 3
{
Create a new rule titled Chambers with Power=3 and the text:
{{
A player who is a member of an existing public contract CAN make the
contract into a chamber with Agoran consent. A chamber requires no
parties. The authority index of a chamber is an rational number from 0
to 4, and is by default 0. A player CAN set the authority index of any
chamber to any valid value without Agoran consent. The authority index
CANNOT be changed by any other means. A chamber CAN through its own
internal mechanisms increase or decrease the power of any proposal by
an amount less than or equal to its authority index as a result of an
Agoran Decision regarding the acceptance of that proposal in that
chamber.

Any player CAN cause a chamber to cease to be a chamber without Agoran consent.
}}

Repeal R2196 (Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions)

Amend R106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing:
{{
Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.
  For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of
  the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.

  If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,
  then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it
  from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and
  its adoption index, and then it takes effect.  It does not
  otherwise take effect.
}}
with:
{{
Whenever the power of a proposal ever is equal to or exceeds its
adoption index then the proposal then the Rulekeepor SHALL adopt that
proposal in a timely fashion. When the Rulekeepor adopts a proposal,
unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to
the the minimum of four and its adoption index, and it then is removed
from the Proposal Pool and takes effect. A proposal does not otherwise
take effect.
}}

Amend R1607 (The Promotor) by replacing:
{{
The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at
  any time.  The Promotor's weekly duties include the distribution
  of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the
  beginning of that week.

  The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the
  clear intent of distributing it.  When a proposal is
  distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool.  The
  distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of
  whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.

  For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the
  following are essential parameters:

  a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).
  b) Its interest index.
}}
with:
{{
The author of a proposal in the Proposal Pool CAN request it be
distributed to a specific chamber by announcement. Any Player CAN,
with 2 support, request a proposal be distributed to a specific
chamber. The Promotor SHALL distribute each such requested proposal to
the specified chamber in a timely fashion unless that proposal has
already been distributed to that chamber previously.

The Promotor CAN remove any proposal from the proposal pool which the
author has not requested to be distributed within the past two weeks
or which has a negitive power. The Promotor SHALL remove any such
propoal from the pool in a timely fashion.

The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the clear
intent of distributing it. Distributing a proposal initiates an Agoran
decision for the acceptance of the  proposal in the specified chamber.
An agoran decision for the acceptance of a proposal in a specific
chamber may also be known as a chamber decision (generic) or an XXX
Decision (where XXX is the name of the chamber). For an agoran
decision regarding the acceptance of a proposal the following are
essential parameters:

a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).
b) Its interest index.
c) The specified chamber.

The eligible voters on a chamber decision are the list of eligible
voters defined in that chamber, or in the case there is no such list
all parties to that chamber. The voting limit of each eligible voter
on chamber decision is equal to the voting limit(s) defined by that
chamber, or in the case there is none defined the voting limit is 1.
}}

Repeal R2142 (Support Democracy)

Amend R2019 (Prerogitives) by replacing:
{{
  c) Wielder of Veto.  The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary
 decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases
 its Adoption Index by 1.

  d) Wielder of Rubberstamp.  The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN
 rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by
 announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the
 contrary notwithstanding.
}}
with:
{{
c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto any proposal in the
proposal pool by announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1.

d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN (once per
proposal) rubberstamp any proposal in the proposal pool by
announcement; this 

Re: DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-proposal: Chambers

2008-06-17 Thread Chester Mealer
It seems like your proposal should say with Agoran Consent where it says
without.

Any player CAN cause a chamber to cease to be a chamber without Agoran
consent.

Unless I missed a rule where CAN = cannot this would mean at any time a
player could simply declare a chamber as not a chamber.

so shouldn't it read:

Any player CAN cause a chamber to cease to be a chamber with Agoran consent.

or

Any player CAN cause a chamber to cease to be a chamber without Agoran
objection.

?

cdm014


Re: DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-proposal: Chambers

2008-06-17 Thread Roger Hicks
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 It seems like your proposal should say with Agoran Consent where it says
 without.


Oops...thanks!

BobTHJ


Re: DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-proposal: Chambers

2008-06-11 Thread Ian Kelly
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 root wrote:

 Now that I think about it, can filibuster, as currently written, even
 work?  Couldn't setting the quorum too high to be adopted be construed
 as preventing a proposal from taking effect, a Power-3 secured
 change per Rule 106?

 No more than defining the F/A threshold needed for adoption.  The only
 rules that prevent a proposal from taking effect (even if it's
 adopted) are 106 itself and 2034.

But then securing preventing a proposal from taking effect is rather
ineffective, if it can just be circumvented by messing with the
proposal some other way instead.

-root


Re: DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-proposal: Chambers

2008-06-11 Thread Ed Murphy
root wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 root wrote:

 Now that I think about it, can filibuster, as currently written, even
 work?  Couldn't setting the quorum too high to be adopted be construed
 as preventing a proposal from taking effect, a Power-3 secured
 change per Rule 106?
 No more than defining the F/A threshold needed for adoption.  The only
 rules that prevent a proposal from taking effect (even if it's
 adopted) are 106 itself and 2034.
 
 But then securing preventing a proposal from taking effect is rather
 ineffective, if it can just be circumvented by messing with the
 proposal some other way instead.

I think these are all the rules directly relevant to this issue:

  106 (Power=3) AI defined
if decision = ADOPTED then {
  proposal's Power = min(4,AI)
  proposal takes effect
}

  955 (Power=3) if !quorum then decision = FAILED QUORUM else {
  if ordinary or democratic then {
VI = F/A
if VI  1 and VI = AI then ADOPTED else REJECTED
  }
}

 2196 (Power=3) AI exists - ordinary or democratic

  879 (Power=2) defines quorum

 2019 (Power=2) increases AI

 1950 (Power=3) democratic eligibility and voting limit

 2156 (Power=2) ordinary eligibility and voting limit

Off the top of my head, a Power=1 rule could (if created) allow
decreasing AI, and/or re-define ratio and shift it from 754(3)
to 754(2).  Anything else?


DIS: Re: BAK: Proto-proposal: Chambers

2008-06-10 Thread Ed Murphy
root wrote:

 Now that I think about it, can filibuster, as currently written, even
 work?  Couldn't setting the quorum too high to be adopted be construed
 as preventing a proposal from taking effect, a Power-3 secured
 change per Rule 106?

No more than defining the F/A threshold needed for adoption.  The only
rules that prevent a proposal from taking effect (even if it's
adopted) are 106 itself and 2034.