Re: Fwd: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
* don't think I've _ever_ used it. That was a typo, not an attempt at verbal trickery, -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 11:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I would like to point out that neither of my proposals are even going to be > adopted unless a large swathe of people change their minds suddenly and > against character, so y'all are massively overthinking this... > > As for the pledge, I agree with G., it's entirely unreasonable. The > Assessor's ability to resolve proposals out of order (even occasionally for > personal gain, although I confess I don't think I've never used it to the > tune of 11.8% of a win before) is neither new nor historically controversial. > And if you disagree, well, feel free to announce your intent to impeach me. > > -twg > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 5:14 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > wrote: > > > If I were the assessor, I wouldn't make this pledge personally. It's > > far too constraining for a few votes, and as I mentioned there's some > > good and valid reasons to resolve out-of-order, and 5 is a high bar. > > Your original intent was just to make sure 8133 was resolved before the > > others in this batch. There are no prior batches in the pipeline or > > any reason in the current batch to go out-of-order. You could just > > say "unless e pledges to resolve 8133 before e resolves any other > > decision". > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote: > > > > > Let me try to fix this again. > > > I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to: > > > ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window lasting > > > until 60 days after eir time acting as Assessor has ended, to always > > > resolve proposals in numerical order, unless e recieves 5 consent to do > > > otherwise, and to never deputize anyone who has not made a pledge > > > identical > > > to eirs, the breaking of which is a Class N crime, for some N greater than > > > or equal to 6 > > > AGAINST otherwise > > > -- Forwarded message -- > > > From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk > > > Date: Nov 27, 2018 11:27 > > > Subject: Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138 > > > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" agora-discussion@agoranomic.org > > > Cc: > > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 08:20 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > > > > > Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I > > > > don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing > > > > the ability to easily clean up some mess. > > > > > > It could potentially work as a counterscam, but if we need to do this > > > in an emergency, we could just have the Assessor resign and then have > > > someone deputise to resolve them in the required order. > > > Come to think of it, the pledge being requested here could be worked > > > around via resigning Assessor (ending the pledge) then immediately > > > deputising yourself to resolve the proposals out of order. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > ais523
Re: Fwd: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
I would like to point out that neither of my proposals are even going to be adopted unless a large swathe of people change their minds suddenly and against character, so y'all are massively overthinking this... As for the pledge, I agree with G., it's entirely unreasonable. The Assessor's ability to resolve proposals out of order (even occasionally for personal gain, although I confess I don't think I've never used it to the tune of 11.8% of a win before) is neither new nor historically controversial. And if you disagree, well, feel free to announce your intent to impeach me. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 5:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > If I were the assessor, I wouldn't make this pledge personally. It's > far too constraining for a few votes, and as I mentioned there's some > good and valid reasons to resolve out-of-order, and 5 is a high bar. > > Your original intent was just to make sure 8133 was resolved before the > others in this batch. There are no prior batches in the pipeline or > any reason in the current batch to go out-of-order. You could just > say "unless e pledges to resolve 8133 before e resolves any other > decision". > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote: > > > Let me try to fix this again. > > I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to: > > ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window lasting > > until 60 days after eir time acting as Assessor has ended, to always > > resolve proposals in numerical order, unless e recieves 5 consent to do > > otherwise, and to never deputize anyone who has not made a pledge identical > > to eirs, the breaking of which is a Class N crime, for some N greater than > > or equal to 6 > > AGAINST otherwise > > -- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk > > Date: Nov 27, 2018 11:27 > > Subject: Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138 > > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" agora-discussion@agoranomic.org > > Cc: > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 08:20 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > > > Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I > > > don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing > > > the ability to easily clean up some mess. > > > > It could potentially work as a counterscam, but if we need to do this > > in an emergency, we could just have the Assessor resign and then have > > someone deputise to resolve them in the required order. > > Come to think of it, the pledge being requested here could be worked > > around via resigning Assessor (ending the pledge) then immediately > > deputising yourself to resolve the proposals out of order. > > -- > > ais523
Re: Fwd: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
I see potential impeachment as an additional rather than an alternative disincentive On Nov 27, 2018 12:16, "Kerim Aydin" wrote: If I were the assessor, I wouldn't make this pledge personally. It's far too constraining for a few votes, and as I mentioned there's some good and valid reasons to resolve out-of-order, and 5 is a high bar. Your original intent was just to make sure 8133 was resolved before the others in this batch. There are no prior batches in the pipeline or any reason in the current batch to go out-of-order. You could just say "unless e pledges to resolve 8133 before e resolves any other decision". On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote: > Let me try to fix this again. > I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to: > ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window lasting > until 60 days after eir time acting as Assessor has ended, to always > resolve proposals in numerical order, unless e recieves 5 consent to do > otherwise, and to never deputize anyone who has not made a pledge identical > to eirs, the breaking of which is a Class N crime, for some N greater than > or equal to 6 > AGAINST otherwise > -- Forwarded message -- > From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" > Date: Nov 27, 2018 11:27 > Subject: Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138 > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" > Cc: > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 08:20 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I > > don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing > > the ability to easily clean up some mess. > > It could potentially work as a counterscam, but if we need to do this > in an emergency, we could just have the Assessor resign and then have > someone deputise to resolve them in the required order. > > Come to think of it, the pledge being requested here could be worked > around via resigning Assessor (ending the pledge) then immediately > deputising yourself to resolve the proposals out of order. > > > -- > ais523 >
Re: Fwd: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
If I were the assessor, I wouldn't make this pledge personally. It's far too constraining for a few votes, and as I mentioned there's some good and valid reasons to resolve out-of-order, and 5 is a high bar. Your original intent was just to make sure 8133 was resolved before the others in this batch. There are no prior batches in the pipeline or any reason in the current batch to go out-of-order. You could just say "unless e pledges to resolve 8133 before e resolves any other decision". On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote: > Let me try to fix this again. > I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to: > ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window lasting > until 60 days after eir time acting as Assessor has ended, to always > resolve proposals in numerical order, unless e recieves 5 consent to do > otherwise, and to never deputize anyone who has not made a pledge identical > to eirs, the breaking of which is a Class N crime, for some N greater than > or equal to 6 > AGAINST otherwise > -- Forwarded message -- > From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" > Date: Nov 27, 2018 11:27 > Subject: Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138 > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" > Cc: > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 08:20 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I > > don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing > > the ability to easily clean up some mess. > > It could potentially work as a counterscam, but if we need to do this > in an emergency, we could just have the Assessor resign and then have > someone deputise to resolve them in the required order. > > Come to think of it, the pledge being requested here could be worked > around via resigning Assessor (ending the pledge) then immediately > deputising yourself to resolve the proposals out of order. > > > -- > ais523 >
