I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it. For this decision, the vote collector
is the Assessor, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
also a valid vote).
ID Author(s) AI Title
--------------------------------------------------
7772* scshunt 3.0 Tie-Breaking Votes
7773* scshunt 1.0 IADoP Salary Control
7774* scshunt 1.0 Blocking Power
7775* scshunt 3.0 High-Power Centralization
7776+ omd 1.7 Clarify judgement wording
7777+ omd, G. 2.0 Simplified moot fix
7778* omd 3.0 Instant Runoff Improved
7779* scshunt 1.0 Competition Pending
The proposal pool is currently empty.
Legend: <ID>* : Proposal is pending
<ID>+ : By publishing this report, I pend the marked proposal
The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 7772
Title: Tie-Breaking Votes
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: scshunt
Co-author(s):
Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by replacing
(b) If the decision has an adoption index, then if the strength
of FOR is greater than the strength of AGAINST, and the
ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST is
greater than or equal to the decision's adoption index (or
the strength of AGAINST is zero), then the outcome is
ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.
with
(b) If the decision has an adoption index, then if the strength
of FOR is greater than the strength of AGAINST, and the
ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST is
greater than the decision's adoption index (or
the strength of AGAINST is zero), then the outcome is
ADOPTED; otherwise if the strength of FOR is equal to or
greater than the decisions adoption index and the ration of
the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST is equal to
the decision's adoption index, then the vote collector shall
select either ADOPTED or REJECTED as the outcome;
otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.
[Give the Assessor the power to break ties, including to get a
majority on a vote or when the voting ratio exactly matches the AI].
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 7773
Title: IADoP Salary Control
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: scshunt
Co-author(s):
Amend Rule 2455 (How to Pend a Proposal) by replacing
Each office has a spending power, which is a natural number.
The spending power of each office is 1, except as otherwise
defined by rule. The spending power of Rulekeepor, of Speaker,
and of Prime Minister is 2. The spending power of Promotor is 4.
with
Spending power is an office switch, whose values range over the
positive integers between 1 and 10 inclusive, with a default of
1. Spending power is tracked by the IADoP. The IADoP CAN flip
the spending power of an office by announcement, provided that
the Promotor always has spending power no less than 1 less than
the greatest spending power among offices, and further provided
that the current IADoP has not already flipped that office's
spending power in the current month.
Set the spending power of Promotor to 4, of Rulekeepor, Prime
Minister, and Speaker to 2, and of all other offices to 1.
[Give the IADoP the authority to set salaries for officers. Promotor
gets, as a perk, right to never be that far behind the office with the
most.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 7774
Title: Blocking Power
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: scshunt
Co-author(s):
Amend Rule 2455 (How to Pend a Proposal) by replacing
whose value is either "pending" or "not pending" (default).
with
whose value is either "pending", "delayed", or "idle"
(default).
and by replacing
A player can flip a proposal's imminence to "pending" by
announcement, unless e has already done so a number of
times that week that equals or exceeds the total spending
power of the offices e holds.
with
To pend a proposal is to flip its imminence to "pending". To
delay a proposal is to flip its imminence to "delayed". To idle
a proposal is to flip its imminence to "idle." At the beginning
of each week, each delayed proposal is idled.
A player CAN pend an idle proposal by announcement, unless
e has already done so a number of times this week that equals
or exceeds the total spending power of the offices e holds, not
counting actions authorized by another rule.
The current Promotor CAN, by announcement, delay a proposal,
unless e has already done so a number of times this month
which equals or exceeds the Promotor's spending power, not
counting actions authorized by another rule.
[Give the Promotor the ability to delay proposals; possibly
indefinitely if e is careful.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 7775
Title: High-Power Centralization
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: scshunt
Co-author(s):
If the proposal "Centralization" has not been adopted, this proposal
has no effect. Otherwise, amend Rule 2160 (Deputisation) by replacing
When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the
holder of that office.
with
(f) No rule explicitly forbids performance of that action by
deputisation.
and amend Rule 2483 (Ribbons) by replacing the word "elected" by
"voluntary".
[This is power-3 amendments to rules which are not critical to
Centralization working correctly, but are ideal. Yes, this is a way to
reduce the AI of Centralization, because it doesn't touch on the core
of any power-3 rules.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 7776
Title: Clarify judgement wording
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: omd
Co-author(s):
Amend Rule 591 (Delivering Judgements) by replacing:
When a CFJ becomes open and is assigned to a judge, that judge
SHALL assign a valid judgement to the case within a week of
assignment, by announcement.
with:
When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN
assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so
in a timely fashion after this becomes possible.
If any CFJs initiated before 2015-06-01 are open, assign them a
judgement of DISMISS.
[The original wording is highly ambiguous about when - indeed, whether -
judgements can actually be assigned. I pointed this out back in
November of last year, but nothing was done about it. See:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg26962.html
In fact, the CFJs I called in that message were never assigned.
]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 7777
Title: Simplified moot fix
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: omd
Co-author(s): G.
Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing:
At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), or has exactly
one judgement.
with:
At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
assigned exactly one judgement.
Amend Rule 911 (Motions and Moots) by replacing all but the first
paragraph with the following (selecting one of the two versions of the
second paragraph as indicated):
If a CFJ has a judgement assigned, a player CAN enter that
judgement into Moot with two support. When this occurs, the CFJ
is suspended, and the Arbitor is once authorized to initiate the
Agoran decision to determine public confidence in the judgement,
which e SHALL do in a timely fashion.
If Proposal 7771 took effect: {
For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor, the valid
preferences are AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT, and the valid options
are ordered lists of one or more valid preference. When the
decision is resolved, the effect depends on the outcome:
}
Otherwise: {
For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor and the
valid options are AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT. When the decision
is resolved, the effect depends on the outcome:
}
- AFFIRM, FAILED QUORUM: The judgement is reassigned to the case,
and cannot be entered into Moot again.
- REMAND: The case becomes open again.
- REMIT: The case becomes open again, and the current judge is
recused. The Arbitor SHALL NOT assign em to the case again
unless no other eligible judges have displayed interest in
judging.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 7778
Title: Instant Runoff Improved
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: omd
Co-author(s):
[The proposal currently up for vote is broken due to the pseudo-quorum
mechanism in the Silver Quill rule; it also doesn't clearly specify
how voting strength factors into instant runoff (it's intended to
not). Sorry. In any case, I prefer the following way of formulating
instant runoff, based on splitting "option" from "valid vote",
because:
(a) they were already somewhat split due to PRESENT;
(b) in general, in an instant runoff election, I think one would
consider the ordinary-language "options" to be the candidates, not
lists of them;
(c) the rules are already confused about the term "option selected by
Agora"; and
(d) the refactored 955 feels cleaner in general.
]
Amend Rule 2444 (Silver Quill) by changing the last two paragraphs to:
Once four days have passed since initiation, the Herald CAN once
initiate the Agoran decision to determine the winner, and SHALL
do so in a timely fashion. For this decision, the valid options
are all eligible proposals, the vote collector is the Herald,
and the voting method is instant runoff.
Upon the resolution of the decision, if the outcome is not
FAILED QUORUM and there were at least three votes containing it
in any preference slot, that proposal wins the Ceremony, and the
Herald is authorized to award its author the Patent Title of
"Silver Quill YYYY/MM", substituting the Marker Date; otherwise,
there is no winner. This ends the Ceremony.
Amend Rule 2154 (Election Procedure) by replacing:
For
this decision, the valid options are the players and the vote
collector is the IADoP. Upon the resolution of this decision,
its outcome, if a player, is installed into office, and the
election ends.
with:
For
this decision, the valid options are the players, the vote
collector is the IADoP, and the voting method is instant runoff.
Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome, if a player,
is installed into office, and the election ends.
Amend Rule 693 (Agoran Decisions) by removing the last paragraph
[about PRESENT].
Amend Rule 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) by replacing item (b) with:
(b) A clear indication of the set of valid votes.
Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by replacing the first
paragraph with:
An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a
notice satisfying the following conditions:
by replacing item (d) with:
(d) The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
the voting method.
by replacing item (f) with:
(f) It is the most recent of the voter's otherwise-valid
ballots.
and by removing the last paragraph [about strength].
[Multiple ballots haven't been castable separately for a while now, so
there's no need to require explicit retraction.]
Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing the
last paragraph with:
For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the voting
method is AI-majority.
Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) to read:
Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which determines how
voters may vote on it and how to calculate the outcome. The
following voting methods are defined:
(1) AI-majority: the valid votes are FOR and AGAINST. Let F be
the total voting strength of all voters with valid ballots
cast FOR a decision, A be the same for AGAINST, and AI be
the adoption index of the decision. The outcome is ADOPTED
if F/A >= AI and F/A > 1 (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise
REJECTED.
This is the only voting method which takes voting strength
into account.
(2) Instant runoff: the valid votes are ordered lists of
options, and the outcome is whichever option wins according
to the standard definition of instant runoff. In case
multiple valid options tie for the lowest number of votes at
any stage, the vote collector CAN and must, in the
announcement of the decision's resolution, select one such
option to eliminate; if, for N > 1, all eir possible choices
in the next N stages would result in the same set of options
being eliminated, e need not specify the order of
elimination.
(3) First-past-the-post (default): the valid votes are the
options, and the outcome is whichever option received the
most votes. In case of a tie, the vote collector CAN and
must, in the announcement of the decision's resolution,
select one of the leaders as the outcome.
The previous notwithstanding:
- If there is more than one option, and the number of valid
ballots is less than quorum, the outcome is instead FAILED
QUORUM.
- PRESENT is always a valid vote, with no effect on the outcome
except counting towards quorum.
- If there are no valid options, the outcome is null.
The outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved, and
cannot change thereafter.
Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing "option selected by
Agora" with "outcome".
[ADOPTED was never an "option", so this never really made sense.]
Amend Rule 208 (Resolving Agoran Decisions) by replacing "option
selected by Agora" with "outcome", and removing "on the various
options".
Amend Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes) by replacing "selected option"
with "value of the vote", then "option" with "value".
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 7779
Title: Competition Pending
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: scshunt
Co-author(s):
Amend rule 2431 (Proposal Competitions) by prepending "Rules to the
contrary notwithstanding, if at any time a Competition Proposal in the
Proposal Pool is not pending, it immediately becomes pending."
[This is to prevent the Promotor from being bound to either fail to
distribute them all or distribute a non-pending proposal, and clear up
that mess besides.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--
aranea
