I would submit, as arguments, that the Promotor was reminded and had the opportunity to avoid the violation by distributing the proposal at the time of the report.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:59 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Very true. I plead guilty and request the mercy of the Referee for > this error, noting that it was an inadvertent mistake. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I Point a Finger at Aris, alleging that e failed to distribute the > proposal > > identified below as pp3 last week, thereby failing to distribute all > pending > > proposals. > > > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:38 Aris Merchant, > > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> This following is a revision to the proposal pool from my last report. > >> > >> The proposal pool contains the following proposals: > >> > >> ID Author(s) AI Title > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> pp1 nichdel 3.0 Slower Promotion > >> pp2 nichdel 1.0 Guaranteed Stampage > >> pp3* Alexis 3.0 Clarity Act > >> pp4* Gaelan 1.0 Another Economy Fix Attempt > >> > >> Legend: <ID>* : Proposal is pending. > >> > >> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. > >> > >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > >> ID: pp1 > >> Title: Slower Promotion > >> Adoption index: 3.0 > >> Author: nichdel > >> Co-authors: > >> > >> > >> Amend R1607 (Distribution) by replacing: > >> > >> In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir weekly > >> duties, > >> distribute all pending proposals. > >> > >> with > >> > >> In a given Agoran week, as part of eir weekly duties, the Promotor > >> SHALL: > >> > >> * distribute all pending proposals if there are no unresolved > Agoran > >> decisions to adopt a proposal. > >> > >> * list all unresolved Agoran decisions to adopt a proposal. The > >> Promotor > >> MAY still distribute all pending proposals. > >> > >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > >> ID: pp2 > >> Title: Guaranteed Stampage > >> Adoption index: 1.0 > >> Author: nichdel > >> Co-authors: > >> > >> > >> Amend 2499 "Welcome Packages" to read in full: > >> > >> If a player has not received one since e most recently became a > >> player, any player CAN, by announcement, cause em to receive a > >> Welcome package. When a player receives a Welcome Package: > >> > >> * Agora transfers em 1/10th the FV in shinies and > >> > >> * a Stamp, with Agora as the Creater, is created in eir > >> possession. > >> > >> Amend R2498 to be titled "Stamps" and to read in full: > >> > >> Stamps are an asset. The Secretary is the recordkeepor of Stamps. > >> > >> Each Stamp has an associated Creater which SHOULD be noted whenever > the > >> Stamp > >> is mentioned and MUST be noted whenever the Stamp is transfered. > Stamps > >> with > >> the same creater are fungible. > >> > >> Once per month a player CAN, by announcement, create a Stamp with > >> themselves > >> as the Creater by transferring the Stamp Value, in shinies, to Agora. > >> > >> If Agora owns at least as many Shinies as the current Stamp Value, a > >> player > >> CAN, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns to cause Agora to > transfer > >> the > >> Stamp Value, in shinies, to emself. > >> > >> Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Stamp Wins" with the following text: > >> > >> If a player owns 10 stamps with different Creaters, none of which have > >> Agora > >> as its Creater, e CAN win by announcement. Doing so destroys the > >> specified > >> stamps. > >> > >> Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Basic Stamp Income" with the following > >> text: > >> > >> When the Secretary publishes the first Weekly Report of an Agoran > Month, > >> e > >> CAN and SHALL, by announcement, create Stamps with Agora as the > Creater > >> and > >> transfer them to any player who has no stamps and less than the Stamp > >> Value > >> in shinies at the time of publication. > >> > >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > >> ID: pp3 > >> Title: Clarity Act > >> Adoption index: 3.0 > >> Author: Alexis > >> Co-authors: > >> > >> 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.] > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> [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.] > >> > >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > >> ID: pp4 > >> Title: Another Economy Fix Attempt > >> Adoption index: 1.0 > >> Author: Gaelan > >> Co-authors: > >> > >> > >> Create a power-1 rule titled "Keep it up" with the following text: > >> === > >> If an action defined entirely by the rules that would otherwise be > >> POSSIBLE for a player to perform is IMPOSSIBLE due to Agora having a > >> low shiny balance, that player may win the game with 2 Days Notice. > >> Upon doing so, half of all player's shiny balances (rounded down) are > >> transferred to Agora. > >> === > >> > >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >
