No, I just didn't state my regret specifically on that one haha, it seems
fine.
And having my zombie vote FOR proposals that i swore to oppose and destroy
is counter to my intent, if not the pledge's wording.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:07 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you strongly against 8196 (I know that it adds text)? Is there
> something materially wrong with it that I should fix later?
>
> Also, you could make Tarhalindur vote FOR the ones that you can't due to
> your pledge (I think, depending on the wording of the pledge).
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/1/19 10:04 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > TTttPF again oops
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:03 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> ttttttttttttttttttpf
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:03 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Reminder that I am still pledged to vote AGAINST anything that adds
> words
> >>> to the rules
> >>>
> >>> I vote as follows. I also act on Tarhalindur's behalf to vote as
> follows.
> >>>
> >>> 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2)
> >>> AGAINST
> >>> 8197 G. none no power is all powerful
> >>> AGAINST
> >>> 8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon!
> >>> AGAINST, the ritual is fun.
> >>> 8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff
> >>> With regret, AGAINST due to my pledge
> >>> 8200 Aris, G. 3.0 Sane AI Defaulting
> >>> With regret, AGAINST due to my pledge
> >>> 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out
> >>> FOR
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:56 AM Aris Merchant <
> >>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> >>>> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> >>>> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> >>>> quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> >>>> options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> >>>> conditional votes).
> >>>>
> >>>> ID Author(s) AI Title
> >>>>
> >>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2)
> >>>> 8197 G. none no power is all powerful
> >>>> 8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon!
> >>>> 8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff
> >>>> 8200 Aris, G. 3.0 Sane AI Defaulting
> >>>> 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The proposal pool is currently empty.
> >>>>
> >>>> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
> >>>>
> >>>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >>>> ID: 8196
> >>>> Title: Perfecting pledges (v1.2)
> >>>> Adoption index: 1.7
> >>>> Author: Jason Cobb
> >>>> Co-authors: Falsifian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [Comment: This clarifies the wording to explicitly use both the time
> >>>> window and penalty specified in the Oath. This also specifies that
> >>>> pledges can only be violated once.]
> >>>>
> >>>> Amend the first paragraph of Rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read:
> >>>>
> >>>> If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
> >>>> refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
> >>>> within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
> >>>> Oathbreaking. If the pledge specifically states that the pledge is
> >>>> under penalty of a Class A crime, where A is an integer not less
> >>>> than 1, then N is A; otherwise, N is 2. If the pledge specifically
> >>>> states that it operates only for a certain time window, and if that
> >>>> time window is prospective and not retrospective, then it operates
> >>>> only for that time window; otherwise, the pledge operates for 60
> >>>> days. It is impossible to commit the crime of Oathbreaking multiple
> >>>> times for a single pledge; breaking a single pledge multiple times
> >>>> constitutes a single crime.
> >>>>
> >>>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >>>> ID: 8197
> >>>> Title: no power is all powerful
> >>>> Adoption index: none
> >>>> Author: G.
> >>>> Co-authors:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Create the following Rule, "Supreme Power", Power=4:
> >>>>
> >>>> G. CAN make arbitrary changes to the gamestate by announcement.
> >>>>
> >>>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >>>> ID: 8198
> >>>> Title: Be gone, foul demon!
> >>>> Adoption index: 1.0
> >>>> Author: Jason Cobb
> >>>> Co-authors:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Repeal Rule 2596 ("The Ritual").
> >>>>
> >>>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >>>> ID: 8199
> >>>> Title: Fixing instant runoff
> >>>> Adoption index: 3.0
> >>>> Author: Jason Cobb
> >>>> Co-authors:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Amend item 3 of the only list of Rule 2528 ("Voting Methods") to read:
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. For an instant runoff decision, non-empty ordered lists for
> which
> >>>> each element is a valid option.
> >>>>
> >>>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >>>> ID: 8200
> >>>> Title: Sane AI Defaulting
> >>>> Adoption index: 3.0
> >>>> Author: Aris
> >>>> Co-authors: G.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing:
> >>>> Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
> >>>> decisions and proposals, whose value is either "none" (default) or
> >>>> an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
> >>>> with:
> >>>> Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
> >>>> decisions and proposals. For decisions, the possible values are
> >>>> "none" (default) or integral multiples of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
> >>>> For proposals, the possible values are integral multiples of 0.1
> >>>> from 1.0 to 9.9 (default 1.0).
> >>>>
> >>>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >>>> ID: 8201
> >>>> Title: Just Make Them Write It Out
> >>>> Adoption index: 3.0
> >>>> Author: Aris
> >>>> Co-authors:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [It's terribly confusing for everyone to leave out a proposal title.
> >>>> Leaving
> >>>> out AI only works if it's 1.0 anyway, and confuses me every time I see
> >>> it.
> >>>> I usually spend like a solid minute checking that I haven't missed
> >>>> something
> >>>> as Promotor and that the proposal is effective at that power as a
> >>> player.
> >>>> Just making these fields mandatory would save everyone so much trouble
> >>> and
> >>>> be only marginally more work for authors.]
> >>>>
> >>>> Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by changing the first paragraph,
> including
> >>>> the following list, to read in full:
> >>>>
> >>>> A proposal is an entity consisting of a body of text and
> >>>> other attributes. A player CAN create a proposal by announcement,
> >>>> specifying its text, an associated title, and a valid adoption
> index,
> >>> and
> >>>> optionally specifying a list of co-authors (who must be persons
> other
> >>>> than the author).
> >>>>
> >>>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> From R. Lee
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From R. Lee
> >>
> >
>
--
>From R. Lee
