If it isn't self-ratifying, you're not obliged to deal with it, I think. On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 00:09 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm probably going to deny this, as there is (I think) a custom that the > effective date of a revision is implied to be that of the original report. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:04 PM Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Oh, also, just in case, to stop self-ratification: CoE: there are more >> proposals in the Proposal Pool than just these. >> >> >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 21:10 Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I spend an AP to CFJ: The below-quoted document contains a >>> self-ratifying list of proposals in the Proposal Pool. Arguments: does this >>> count as a portion of a purported Promotor's report? There is no >>> information in the report which isn't in the document, and this is clearly >>> published by the Promotor with the intent to convey all of the report's >>> information. The subject further implies it was a report. >>> >>> Evidence: rules 1607 and 2201 >>> >>> 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. >>>> === >>>> >>>> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >>>> >>>
