On 1/14/12, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 4:30 PM, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I submit a proposal with adoption index 3 and title {Ambassador fix} and
>> text
>> {
>> Amend Rule 2352 by removing the last paragraph.
>> Retitle Rule 2352 to {The Ambassador Part I}
>> Create a Rule with title {The Ambassador Part II} and text
>> {
>> Any player CAN, with Agoran Consent, cause Agora to post a blog post
>> (specifying its title, text, and list of categories) or comment
>> (specifying its text) to BlogNomic.
>> If no rule titled {The Ambassador Part I} exists, the Rulekeepor CAN and
>> SHOULD repeal this rule by announcement in a timely fashion from the last
>> time there was a rule with that title. If e fails to do so, any player
>> CAN repeal this rule Without Objection or With Agoran Consent.
>> }.
>> }.
>
> This doesn't work because Rule 105 prevents persons from making Rule
> Changes. In general, what is this supposed to fix?
>
>> I submit a proposal with adoption index 3 and title
>> {Alternate Ambassador fix} and text
>> {
>> If Rule 2352 contains the text
>> {
>> Any player CAN, with Agoran Consent, cause Agora to post a blog post
>> (specifying its title, text, and list of categories) or comment
>> (specifying its text) to BlogNomic.
>> } then change the power of Rule 2352 to 3.
>> }.
>
> This doesn't do anything - Agora is not actually allowed to post blog
> posts or comments regardless of Power.
>
These proposals were supposed to address the fact that if my earlier
proposal makes {causing Agora to act} secured then the last part of
Rule 2352 becomes ineffective. If it was ineffective anyway then I
retract the above two proposals and submit a proposal with title
{That Doesn't Do Anything Anyway} and text {Amend Rule 2352 by
removing its last paragraph.}.
>> I submit a proposal with adoption index 3 and title
>> {Clarify/Explicate Agoran Consent} and text
>> {
>> Amend Rule 1728 by replacing the text
>> {
>> 3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a
>> minimum of 1.
>> } with
>> {
>> 3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a
>> minimum of 1. ("With Agoran Consent" is shorthand for this method with
>> N=1.).
>> }.
>> }.
>
> Proposal: The rule already says that N is 1 unless otherwise specified
> (AI=3)
>
> Amend Rule 1728 by removing:
>
> ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.)
>
> and by removing:
>
> ("With Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.)
>
>
>> I submit a proposal with adoption index 2 and title
>> {Clarify/Explicate Elder Support} and text
>> {
>> Amend Rule 2357 by inserting between the first and second paragraphs
>> the text
>> {
>> For any positive integer N:
>> *If a rule says that a person CAN perform an action with N Elder
>> Support, e CAN perform that action With N Elder Support
>> With N Supporters.
>> *Only Elders are eligible to Support an intention to perform an action
>> With N Elder Support With N Supporters.
>> *When a person performs an action With N Elder Support
>> With N Supporters, e thereby performs that action with N Support.
>> *If a rule says that a person CAN perform an action with N Elder Support
>> it does not thereby allow em to perform that action by announcement or
>> any other method, except as allowed by other rules including this rule.
>
> This is unnecessary.
At present the rules don't seem to say anything about what "Elder
Support" actually means.
>
>> I submit a proposal with adoption index 3 and title
>> {fix for Wisdom Of The Elders} and text
>> {
>> Amend Rule 1950 by replacing the text
>> {
>> Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is
>> either "none" (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
>> } with the text
>> {
>> Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is
>> either "none" (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9
>> or the integer 4294967296.
>> }.
>
> Nice catch, although this is a silly patch.
>
