On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 10:24 Kerim Aydin, <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> First, I don't want to be assessor past the election, I grabbed the job
> mainly because I was guessing quorum would be an issue and I didn't want
> my proposals (or ribbon) to languish. I won't be able to keep up with
> Assessor *especially* if e is required to track election votes (I'm
> questioning the wisdom of that, myself).
>
> I vote {PSS, G.} for Assessor, and PRESENT for Tailor.
>
> Second, I haven't accepted Alexis's arguments really. I was hoping someone
> else would throw in a counterargument, but if not I may - Alexis has a
> *plausible* argument, but there are also plausible counterarguments. I
> "accepted" it in that I moved to converge the gamestate regardless. And
> it may not be worth arguing - even if the counterarguments are better the
> rules in question *are* a mess and the re-write is a good thing.
>
> In particular, I have an argument that conditionals evaluating to PRESENT
> still works - but only worth pursuing if it makes a difference for the
> current
> election or next batch of proposals (everything else is "converged").
>
> Finally, PLEASE HELP ME IN READING THE FIX PROPOSAL CAREFULLY. It looks at
> first glance very well written (I have a couple quibbles but they're minor
> so far). But ALEXIS WOULDN'T BE THE PRINCESS if e had not been adept at
> sneaking in rather subtly crafted bugs for later exploitation (that's how
> e got the title). So please, review carefully for holes.
>
> Thanks all,
> -G.
>
I promise that my fix proposal has, to the best of my knowledge, no
loopholes or scams. Not going to make this into a formal pledge because I
don't think the pledge mechanism is well suited for a highly subjective
promise like this, but I would not try to embed a scam into something I see
as an important fix proposal. That said, it's certainly possible for
something I missed to be in there.
As for the campaign proposal, I shifted the duties to assessor mainly to
simplify the resolution process, and avoid the ADoP needing to resolve the
proposals. I could rewrite if whoever wants assessor doesn't want that
extra work.
>
