Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8016-8023

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >  The Registrar CAN flip the master switch of a zombie lot from Agora
> >  to that lot's winner after the winner has paid for the lot; for the
> >  purposes of the auction, to transfer a zombie to a player is to set
> >  that zombie's master switch to that player.
> 
> I think this might be missing a "by announcement".

Interesting effect here.  Is CAN the opposite of CANNOT?  By which I
mean (from R2552):

>  Any player CAN terminate an Auction, by announcement, if the
>  Auction has not ended and the Auctioneer of that Auction cannot
>  transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction.

So the new zombie rule says I CAN.  Strictly literally, that overrides 
any CANNOT in lower-powered rules.  But practically speaking there's no 
method.  So is the statement that I "cannot transfer" for the purposes
of R2552 true or false?

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8016-8023

[Aris Merchant]

A search through my archives shows that I've been using it since it
became my responsibility to list quorum in my distributions. That
happened with the adoption of Proposal 7853, "Close Ancient
Loopholes", by ais523, on Monday June 5th 2017, which also set quorum
to always be an integer value. So it looks like an arbitrary insertion
by me. :) It's part of the format now, so I'd prefer not to change it,
but I will if there's public demand to do so. Sorry everyone for the
mixup.  I'm astonished it lasted this long without anyone catching it.

-Aris

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 16:15 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > All of the below proposals met the quorum of 3.0.
>>
>> How did the ".0" get into quorum? I've seen it be used here for quite a
>> while, but we didn't use it historically and there's no rules reason
>> for it. It's not an index, after all (and under current rules it's
>> always an integer).
>
> Personally I was copying from the Promotor's distribution without really
> thinking about it...  Aris any particular reason for the precision?
>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8016-8023

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 16:15 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > All of the below proposals met the quorum of 3.0.
> 
> How did the ".0" get into quorum? I've seen it be used here for quite a
> while, but we didn't use it historically and there's no rules reason
> for it. It's not an index, after all (and under current rules it's
> always an integer).

Personally I was copying from the Promotor's distribution without really 
thinking about it...  Aris any particular reason for the precision?