Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 04:15, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > Your proposal numbers have some off-by-100 errors. Whoops! Revised votes below. > >> IDAuthor(s) AITitle > >> --- > >> 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2) I vote AGAINST Proposal 8196. > >> 8197 G. none no power is all powerful If I can vote on Proposal 8197, I vote AGAINST it. I note that the my votes in the rest of the quoted message seem to have had the correct proposal numbers. > >> 8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon! > > I vote FOR Proposal 8198. > > > >> 8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff > > > > I vote AGAINST Proposal 8199. > > > >> 8200 Aris, G. 3.0 Sane AI Defaulting > > > > On Proposal 8200, I vote conditionally: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has > > been published specifying any provision within Proposal 8200, otherwise > > FOR. > > > >> 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out > > > > On Proposal 8201, I vote conditionally: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has > > been published specifying any provision within Proposal 8201, otherwise > > FOR. > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
Your proposal numbers have some off-by-100 errors. Greetings, Ørjan. On Wed, 3 Jul 2019, James Cook wrote: Votes inline. IDAuthor(s) AITitle --- 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2) I vote AGAINST Proposal 8296. (per Jason Cobb) 8197 G. none no power is all powerful If I can vote on Proposal 8297, I vote AGAINST it. 8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon! I vote FOR Proposal 8198. 8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff I vote AGAINST Proposal 8199. 8200 Aris, G. 3.0 Sane AI Defaulting On Proposal 8200, I vote conditionally: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has been published specifying any provision within Proposal 8200, otherwise FOR. 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out On Proposal 8201, I vote conditionally: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has been published specifying any provision within Proposal 8201, otherwise FOR.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:08 AM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:57 AM Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> > > > 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out >> > > AGAINST. The fix above (8200) does a better job at the fix. >> > > >> > >> > Please read the comment; this fixes a different problem, not the same >> one. >> >> I sympathize with the comment - working similarly in Arbitor-world >> it's a bear when people don't clearly label arguments/evidence etc. >> But I'd still prefer to leave those fields optional. Proposing is >> something newer players struggle with and the added little kick of "we >> don't let you rely defaults, you have to re-submit" should be avoided. >> (Personally, I would prefer pending proposals cost something as a >> voluntary quality control rather than relying on exact inclusion of >> all the data all the time, but I know I'm in the minority on that >> right now). > > > > Actually, I think this would help new players. In particular, new players > tend not to understand the power/AI system, and thus tend to submit > proposals that have defaulted AI even when that isn’t actually correct. > Let’s face it, most proposals need an AI greater than 1.0. I think it’s > more user-friendly for that just to fail than to say “now you’ve not only > got to remember to fix it, but also retract the existing version”. If they > don’t resubmit their proposal is just going to stay broken, and then people > will vote against it, which is IMO stronger negative feedback than it just > telling them “that didn’t work because you left out a mandatory field”. > Titles are less of an issue in someways, but if someone leaves out a title > they’re just going to confuse anyone. If we could set defaults that worked > most of the time, then it would make sense to have defaults. As it is, we > have defaults that are either often broken (1.0 AI) or terribly bad > practice and as likely as not to annoy everyone (empty title). Making them > mandatory helps everyone get it right, including new players. > > -Aris > >> >> I’m pretty convinced this is a good idea, and if you (the PM) and your zombie both vote against it it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of passing at AI 3.0. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:57 AM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out > > > AGAINST. The fix above (8200) does a better job at the fix. > > > > > > > Please read the comment; this fixes a different problem, not the same > one. > > I sympathize with the comment - working similarly in Arbitor-world > it's a bear when people don't clearly label arguments/evidence etc. > But I'd still prefer to leave those fields optional. Proposing is > something newer players struggle with and the added little kick of "we > don't let you rely defaults, you have to re-submit" should be avoided. > (Personally, I would prefer pending proposals cost something as a > voluntary quality control rather than relying on exact inclusion of > all the data all the time, but I know I'm in the minority on that > right now). Actually, I think this would help new players. In particular, new players tend not to understand the power/AI system, and thus tend to submit proposals that have defaulted AI even when that isn’t actually correct. Let’s face it, most proposals need an AI greater than 1.0. I think it’s more user-friendly for that just to fail than to say “now you’ve not only got to remember to fix it, but also retract the existing version”. If they don’t resubmit their proposal is just going to stay broken, and then people will vote against it, which is IMO stronger negative feedback than it just telling them “that didn’t work because you left out a mandatory field”. Titles are less of an issue in someways, but if someone leaves out a title they’re just going to confuse anyone. If we could set defaults that worked most of the time, then it would make sense to have defaults. As it is, we have defaults that are either often broken (1.0 AI) or terribly bad practice and as likely as not to annoy everyone (empty title). Making them mandatory helps everyone get it right, including new players. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:57 AM Aris Merchant wrote: > > > 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out > > AGAINST. The fix above (8200) does a better job at the fix. > > > > Please read the comment; this fixes a different problem, not the same one. I sympathize with the comment - working similarly in Arbitor-world it's a bear when people don't clearly label arguments/evidence etc. But I'd still prefer to leave those fields optional. Proposing is something newer players struggle with and the added little kick of "we don't let you rely defaults, you have to re-submit" should be avoided. (Personally, I would prefer pending proposals cost something as a voluntary quality control rather than relying on exact inclusion of all the data all the time, but I know I'm in the minority on that right now).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
Uh, doesn't distributing with an incorrect AI listed invalidate the decision if the lack of correct essential parameter is noted? (we just discussed that I think? Maybe I missed part of that.) CoE: the Proposal Pool is not empty, it contains the proposal noted below. Also, in R107, the ancient "lack is correctly identified" text (that predates the current CoE rules) doesn't have a public requirement. On 7/1/2019 10:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Accepted, revision: The AI of proposal 8197 is none, but the AI of the decision on whether to adopt that proposal is 1.0. -Aris On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 9:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: On 7/1/2019 6:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: 8197 G. none no power is all powerful CoE: The AI of the Decision to Adopt Proposal 8197 is 1.0, not 'none'. In R1607: > Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For > this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption > index is initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if > the proposal does not have one The standing precedent is that "proposal does not have an AI" is equivalent to "Proposal has AI=none", so the Decision AI is set to 1.0.
