I submit the following proposals for the Proposal Competition that is
currently ongoing:
Proposal: "Gentle Judicial Updates" AI=1.7, co-author='grok'
mess="Cuddlebeam proved judges can hold up a judgement if they don't feel
qualified to judge"
{{{
Create a new rule entitled 'Recusal' Power = 1 with the following text
{{{
A judge may recuse emself from a CFJ they are assigned to.
When a judge recuses emself from a CFJ the following happens:
1 - The CFJ becomes unassigned
2 - The recused judge becomes ineligible to be assigned as a judge
for a week.
3 - The recused judge SHOULD suggest another judge for the CFJ to
make the Arbitor's job easier.
}}}
Update rule 591 by replacing:
{{{
The valid judgements, based on the facts of the case at the time
the CFJ was initiated, are TRUE, FALSE, and DISMISS. DISMISS is
appropriate if the statement is malformed, undecidable,
irrelevant to the game, if insufficient information exists to
make a judgement with reasonable effort, or the statement is
otherwise not able to be answered TRUE or FALSE.
}}}
with
{{{
The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based
on the truth or falsity of the statement at the time the inquiry
case was initiated (if its truth value changed at that time,
then its initial truth value is used):
* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
logically false
* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically
true
* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is
not relevant to the game or is an overly hypothetical
extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions that
don't actually exist, or if it can be trivially determined
from the outcome of another (possibly still undecided)
judicial case that was not itself judged IRRELEVANT
* INSUFFICIENT, appropriate if the statement does not come with
supporting arguments or evidence, and the judge feels as if an
undue burden is being placed on em by the lack of arguments and
evidence. A CFJ judged INSUFFICIENT CAN and SHOULD be asked
again with sufficient arguments/evidence.
* DISMISS, appropriate if the statement is malformed, undecidable,
if insufficient information exists to make a judgement with
reasonable effort, or the statement is otherwise not able to be
answered with another valid judgement.
}}}
}}}
----------
Proposal: "Cards are power 1.7" AI = 1.7 Mess = "These card rules as
written just don't function"
{{{
Change the power of rule (Bankruptcy) to 1.7
Change the power of rule 2451 (Executive Orders) to 1.7
}}
----------
Proposal: "Trivia(l)" AI = 3 co-author='Aris, Ørjan' Mess = "It's expensive
to fix typos and make other small changes"
{{{
Create a new rule entitled `Trivial Proposals` Power=1.1 with the
following text
{{{
Some proposals have minimal consequences, and thus should cost a
minimal amount to pend, these proposals are known as Trivial
Proposals.
A player may pend a Trivial Proposal by paying 1 Shiny to Agora
without Objection.
}}}
Update rule 2438
Replacing the paragraphs
{{{
Red (R): When a proposal is adopted and changes at least one
rule with Power >= 3, its proposer earns a Red Ribbon.
Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on
which no valid votes were AGAINST, its proposer earns an Orange
Ribbon.
}}}
with
{{{
Red (R): When a non-trivial proposal is adopted and changes at least
one
rule with Power >= 3, its proposer earns a Red Ribbon.
Orange (O): When a non-trivial proposal is adopted via an Agoran
Decision on
which no valid votes were AGAINST, its proposer earns an Orange
Ribbon.
}}}
}}}
----------
Proposal: "Betterer Pledges" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G., Gaelan, Aris, 天火狐'
Mess="Without time restrictions you can't actually break a pledge"
{{{
Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
{{{
Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.
If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do
something,
without providing a time limit, then e SHALL in a timely manner in
order to not
break said pledge.
A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for
any
other person or office, without the other party's explicit consent.
}}}
}}}
----------
Proposal "Why should outsiders be able to Object?" AI=1.2 Mess="Objections
can come from unaffected parties"
{{{
In Rule 2460 replace the text
{{{
A member of an Organization CAN flip that Organization's
Charter without objection
}}}
with
{{{
A member of an Organization CAN flip that Organization's
Charter without the objection of any of its members
}}}
}}}
----------
Trivial Proposal "Missing Shall" AI = 1 Mess="Wrong Shall"
{{{
In rule 2379 replace:
{{{
includes
}}}
with:
{{{
SHALL include
}}}
}}}
----------
Trivial Proposal "emPHAsis" AI = 1, co-author='The concept of
capitalization' mess="Wrong Capitalization"
{{{
In rule 2327 replace:
{{{
are encouraged to
}}}
with:
{{{
are ENCOURAGED to
}}}
}}}
sdf
----------
Trivial Proposal "Prime Minister Says What?" AI = 2, co-author="Typos"
mess="Typos"
{{{
In rule 2423 replace:
{{{
The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is
increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than a elections of
the Prime Minister.
}}}
with:
{{{
The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is
increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other on elections for
the Prime Minister.
}}}
}}}
---------
Trivial Proposal "Hard SHALL" AI = 3, co-author="SHALL" mess = "Wrong Shall"
{{{
In rule 104 replace
{{{
shall
}}}
with
{{{
SHALL
}}}
}}}
----------
