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 5, 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8266 nch 1.0 Glitter
8267 Jason Cobb 3.0 Emerald Ribbons
8268 Jason Cobb 3.0 Deputisation fix
8269 omd 3.0 Clean up distribution mechanisms
8270 omd 3.0 Self-ratifying statements
8271 G. 3.0 Doctorate expectations
The proposal pool is currently empty.
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8266
Title: Glitter
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: nch
Co-authors:
Enact a Power-1 rule titled "Glitter" with the following text {
If a player has earned a ribbon in the past 7 days but already owned it e CAN
once (until e earns another ribbon), by announcement, earn N+1 coins where
N is the number of current players that do not own the same ribbon.
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8267
Title: Emerald Ribbons
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") by appending the following paragraph:
Emerald (E): When a person wins an election, e earns an Emerald Ribbon.
[There's already a ribbon for deputisation, so why shouldn't there be
one for the other way to acquire an office? Also, this is an incentive
to initiate and become candidates in elections.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8268
Title: Deputisation fix
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2160 ("Deputisation") by replacing the text "acting on eir
own behalf" with the text "acting as emself".
[Per CFJ 2637, taking actions within a public message is not acting on
the behalf of oneself, so it may currently be impossible to deputise
without some shenanigans. "Acting as emself" appears to be the standard
way of phrasing this requirement.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8269
Title: Clean up distribution mechanisms
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: omd
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 1607 (Distribution) by replacing;
The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
Pool at any time, by announcement.
with:
The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
Pool at any time.
[The "by announcement" is redundant with Rule 107's 'notice publication'
method, and IIRC there was a judgement that the two rules actually provide two
separate mechanisms for distributing proposals.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8270
Title: Self-ratifying statements
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: omd
Co-authors:
[Create a mechanism for a public message to be defined as self-ratifying a
statement that's not in the message.
Currently, Rule 2034 does this in a strange implicit way, by saying that the
message "constitutes self-ratifying claims that" such-and-such. I'd call it
dubious, but according to CFJ 3618 as recorded in a FLR annotation (I can't
find the original judgement), it does work, even if the message in question
*explicitly disclaims* the such-and-such. Still, it's better to organize
things in a way that avoids counterfactual assumptions.
Convert two rules to use the new mechanism: Rule 2034, and Rule 107, which
previously vaguely mentioned an error being "correctly identified within one
week". The new wording also requires clarity, as I also proposed separately
(if both proposal pass, this overwrites the wording from the other).]
Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) by replacing:
When a public document is ratified
with:
When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is ratified
and by replacing:
Ratifying a public document is secured with power threshold 3.
with:
Ratification is secured with power threshold 3.
and by removing:
A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.
[moved to R2202]
Amend Rule 2202 (Ratification Without Objection) by prepending the paragraph:
A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.
Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
A public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is
ratified when it is continuously undoubted for one week.
A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the following
methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and
nature of a perceived error in it:
with:
When a public document is continuously undoubted for one week
after publication:
- If the rules define it as self-ratifying, it is ratified.
- If the rules define it as a self-ratifying attestation to a
given statement, the statement is ratified.
This clause is inapplicable if the statement to be ratified
cannot be reasonably ascertained from the ruleset and the
contents of the message.
A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the following
methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and
nature of a perceived error in it (or in a statement it attests
to):
Amend Rule 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) by replacing the second
sentence with:
To be valid, the notice must clearly specify the following
information:
and by appending the paragraph:
A public notice purporting to initiate an Agoran decision is a
self-ratifying attestation of the notice's validity.
Amend Rule 2034 (Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges) by replacing:
A public message purporting to resolve an Agoran decision
constitutes self-ratifying claims that
with:
A public message purporting to resolve an Agoran decision
is a self-ratifying attestation that
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8271
Title: Doctorate expectations
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:
[Puts in a time requirement for Doctorates, also fixes bug]
Amend Rule 1367 (Degrees) by changing its power to 2.
[I've wondered for a while why we need this at 3!]
Amend Rule 1367 (Degrees) by replacing its last paragraph with:
A specified degree CAN be awarded by any player other than the
awardee, with 2 Agoran consent. It SHOULD only be awarded for the
publication of an original thesis of scholarly worth (including
responses to peer-review), published with explicit intent to
qualify for a degree. Any degree with D.N. as part of its
abbreviation SHOULD take into account the awardee's academic
history and participation in Agora over time The Herald SHOULD
coordinate the peer-review process and the awarding of
degrees.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
