Per G.’s exhortation, I’ve now read this in full, twice, and run through the “I vote as G. does” case that caused a CFJ against the proposed rules.
> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:41 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I propose the following and pend it with an AP. > > Proposal: Clarity Act (AI=3) > {{{ > Text in square brackets is not a part of this proposal's substance and > is ignored when it takes effect. > > Enact a new power 3 rule entitled Voting Methods, reading as follows: > Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which must be > AI-majority, instant runoff, or first-past-the-post. The voting > method is that specified by the authorizing authority, or > first-past-the-post by default. > > Each Agoran decision has a set of valid options (the choices that > the voters are being asked to select from) and valid votes (the > ways in which the voters can express their opinion or lack thereof. > For AI-majority decisions, the valid options are FOR and AGAINST; > for other decisions, the valid options are defined by other rules. > > The valid votes on an Agoran decision are: > 1. PRESENT; > 2. The valid conditional votes, as defined by rules of power at > least that of this rule; and > 3. For an instant runoff decision, the ordered lists of entities. > 4. For any other decision, the valid options. > > [This splits off the portion of 955 that isn't actually related to > resolution. The definition of instant runoff is changed to evaluate > validity of options at the end of the voting period, and avoid > retroactively invalidating votes if an option drops out.] How does forking this out of the original (and quite old) rule change its interaction with other rules, under rule 1030 (“Precedence between Rules”)? I can’t see any obvious differences, but I wanted to draw attention to this in case others with more insight spot anything. > Amend Rule 955 by replacing the second paragraph and numbered list with > the following and by deleting the second bullet in the unnumbered list. > 1. For an AI-majority decision, let F be the total strength of all > 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. > > 2. For an instant runoff decision, the outcome is whichever option > wins according to the standard definition of instant runoff. > For this purpose, a ballot of strength N is treated as if it > were N distinct ballots expressing the same preferences. 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 M > 1, all eir possible choices in > the next M stages would result in the same set of options being > eliminated, e need not specify the order of elimination. If an > entity that is part of a valid vote is not a valid option at > the end of the voting period, or disqualified by the rule > providing for the decision, then that entity is eliminated > prior to the first round of counting. > > 3. For a first-past-the-post decision, the outcome is whichever > option received the highest total strength of valid ballots. 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. > > [No change here, except for removing the valid votes, and clearly > specifying what happens to options that are no longer valid at the end > of the voting period.] > > If the text "The rule providing for an Agoran Decision by instant runoff > may disqualify one or more options; in such a case, they are eliminated > prior to beginning the first stage of the vote count." appears in Rule > 955, delete it. > > [Coordinating amendment to the Election Procedure proposal. H. Assessor, > please resolve that one first.] > > Amend Rule 2127 to read as follows: > A conditional vote on an Agoran decision is a vote which indicates > a vote based on some condition(s). A conditional vote is evaluated > at the end of the voting period and, rules to the contrary > notwithstanding, is clearly specified if and only if the value of > the condition(s) is/are determinate at the end of the voting > period. If the conditional is clearly specified, and evaluates to > a valid vote, it is counted as that vote; otherwise, it is counted > as PRESENT. > > Any vote which is clearly expressed as a conditional, e.g. "FOR if > <X> is true, AGAINST otherwise", is a valid conditional vote that > evaluates as specified. > > A vote endorsing another person is equivalent to a conditional > vote evaluating to the vote specified in that person's valid > ballot on the decision, if any. This is a new and different definition of ENDORSE than what is presently the case, though I suspect that for all possible Agoran Decisions under current rules they are interchangeable. You’ve done away with RENOUNCE. To my knowledge I’ve never seen it used anyways. > For an instant runoff decision, a vote consisting of a list, one > or more entries of which are valid conditional votes, and the > remaining entries of which are valid options, is a valid > conditional vote. Such a vote is evaluated by evaluating each > conditional entry to a list of votes (or an empty list, if it > evaluates to PRESENT either directly or indirectly), and then > concatenating those lists with the specified valid options in the > order they occurred in the original vote. Is it automatic that if the final list is empty, the ballot is equivalent to PRESENT? > [New conditional vote rule clearly specifies what conditional votes are > valid, as well as providing for evaluation of conditional lists in > instant runoff in the sensible way.] > > Amend Rule 2438 by replacing the paragraph describing Orange > Ribbons with: > > Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on > which no valid ballots were AGAINST (after evaluating > conditionals), its proposer earns an Orange Ribbon. > > Award G. a Transparent Ribbon. > > [I accept that it's fair that this may not actually be a problem, > but clarifying it and converging gamestate does not hurt.] > }}} -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP