Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 11:28 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > It definitely does, to my reading. Can you reread? > > -Aris > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:27 PM Reuben Staley > wrote: > >> I hate to point this out after the distribution, but if I'm correct in my >> reading, this does not actually amend the rule. After this passes, won't >> intents still be broken? I agree with Aris. As I read it, it has two provisions: (1) it changes the gamestate to what it would have been if the amendment had been in effect and then (2) it amends the rule. So I think it works and does amend the rule.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164
I just want to make sure it works as intended since this is an important amendment. It's possible it does amend the rule but that just wasn't clear to me. -- Trigon On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:35 James Cook I was thinking of the proposal as two changes: first, the gamestate > changes, and then, the rule is amended. After the second change, the > ruleset would contain the amended rule. > > But I'm not sure proposals are interpreted as a sequence of actions > like that. If it's treated as a bunch of assertions with no particular > order, I'll have to read it more carefully. > > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 04:32, Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > > It also says that the gamestate, excluding the ruleset, is modified to > what > > it would have been if the amendment took place. Does this override the > > amendment itself? > > > > -- > > Trigon > > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:29 James Cook > > > > It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I > > > don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following > > > amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on > > > its own. > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164
I was thinking of the proposal as two changes: first, the gamestate changes, and then, the rule is amended. After the second change, the ruleset would contain the amended rule. But I'm not sure proposals are interpreted as a sequence of actions like that. If it's treated as a bunch of assertions with no particular order, I'll have to read it more carefully. On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 04:32, Reuben Staley wrote: > > It also says that the gamestate, excluding the ruleset, is modified to what > it would have been if the amendment took place. Does this override the > amendment itself? > > -- > Trigon > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:29 James Cook > > It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I > > don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following > > amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on > > its own. > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164
It also says that the gamestate, excluding the ruleset, is modified to what it would have been if the amendment took place. Does this override the amendment itself? -- Trigon On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:29 James Cook It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I > don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following > amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on > its own. >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164
It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on its own.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164
It definitely does, to my reading. Can you reread? -Aris On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:27 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > I hate to point this out after the distribution, but if I'm correct in my > reading, this does not actually amend the rule. After this passes, won't > intents still be broken? > > -- > Trigon > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 18:34 D. Margaux > > Pursuant to the Living Zombie contract, I hereby cause ATMunn to issue > the > > Cabinet Order of Manifesto to distribute the below proposal, initiating > the > > Agoran Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the quorum > is > > 5, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and > > AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). > > > > > > Proposal ID: 8164 > > Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2.4 > > Author: Falsifian > > Co-authors: ais523, D. Margaux, G., twg > > Adoption Index: 3.1 > > Text: > > > > The gamestate, excluding the rules, is changed to what it would have > > been if the text of the following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined > > whether Agora was Satisfied with any intents attempted after Proposal > > 7815, rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. To the > > extent allowed by the rules, this change is designated as a convergence. > > > > Rule 2124 is amended by replacing its text with the following: > > > > A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible > > entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. > > "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an > > intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly > > posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of > > that intent. > > > > The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform > > an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by > > the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the > > previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is > > not eligible to support it. > > > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action > > unless at least one of the following is true: > > > > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there > > are at least N Objectors to that intent. > > > > 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are > > fewer than than N Supporters of that intent. > > > > 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the > > number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N > > times the number of Objectors to the intent. > > > > The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and > > an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within > > the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent. > > > > The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent > > if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. > > > > A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent > > before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same > > type of response. > > -- > > D. Margaux > > >
