I caught an error: Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy is AI 1.0.
-Aris
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:08 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> Here's a draft report. Comments are, as always, highly appreciated.
>
> -Aris
> ---
> 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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 8308* Falsifian 3.0 Imposing order on the order
> 8309* Alexis 3.0 A Degree of Inefficiency
> 8310* Jason, Alexis 3.0 Deputisation timeliness
> 8311e twg, omd 3.0 Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy
> 8312# Alexis 1.0 On Possibility
> 8313* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person
> 8314e Aris 1.0 Finite Gifting
> 8315# Alexis 3.0 Clearer Resolutions
> 8316* Alexis 3.0 Zombie voting package
> 8317# Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade
> 8318f Aris 1.0 Notorial Economy
> 8319l Aris 2.0 Sergeant-at-Arms
> 8320l Aris 2.0 Promotorial Assignment
> 8321l Aris 2.0 Untying Quorum
>
> The proposal pool is currently empty.
>
> Legend: <ID>* : Democratic proposal.
> <ID># : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber.
> <ID>e : Economy ministry proposal.
> <ID>f : Efficiency ministry proposal.
> <ID>j : Justice ministry proposal.
> <ID>l : Legislation ministry proposal.
> <ID>p : Participation ministry proposal.
>
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
>
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8308
> Title: Imposing order on the order
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Falsifian
> Co-authors:
>
>
> If Proposal 8291 has been passed, and Rule 2350 does not have the list
> item "* A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon it
> creation.", add that list item to the end of the list. If the list
> item is present, but it is not at the end of the list, or it is
> unclear or otherwise difficult or impossible to determine where in the
> list it is, put it at the end of the list.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8309
> Title: A Degree of Inefficiency
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2595 (Performing a Dependent Action) by inserting ", and did not
> subsequently withdraw, " immediately after "published" in the first
> paragraph.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8310
> Title: Deputisation timeliness
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-authors: Alexis
>
>
> Amend Rule 2160 to read, in whole:
>
> {
>
> A player acting as emself (the deputy) CAN perform an action ordinarily
> reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office if
>
> 1. the player does not hold that office;
>
> 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than
> by deputisation, if e held the office;
>
> 3. either (i) there exists an obligation on the holder of that office,
> by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action, or (ii) the
> office is vacant;
>
> 4. either (i) a time limit applicable to that obligation has been
> violated, and the end of that time limit was fewer than 90 days ago, or
> (ii) the office is vacant;
>
> 5. if the office is not interim, the deputy announced between two and
> fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for
> the purposes of the particular action; and
>
> 6. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing so
> by deputisation or by temporary deputisation.
>
>
> When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder of
> that office, unless the action being performed would already install
> someone into that office, and/or unless the deputisation is temporary.
>
> }
>
> [
>
> Added a prohibition on someone for deputising for an office that e
> already holds (this was something I thought of, but then I realized it
> violate all of the exacerbating factors in R2557.
>
> Rephrased the time limit checks based on Alexis's suggested wording,
> also adding a 90-day statute of limitations.
>
> Removed the requirement for prior announcement for most deputisations,
> only kept it for non-interim holders (also per Alexis's suggestion).
>
> ]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8311
> Title: Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: twg
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2496, "Rewards", by replacing "CAN once" with "CAN once by
> announcement".
>
> Amend Rule 2602, "Glitter", by replacing "CAN once" with "CAN once by
> announcement".
>
> For the purposes of this proposal, the "recession" is defined as the
> period of time starting at 03:00 am UTC on 29th January 2020 and ending
> the instant before the adoption of this proposal.
>
> For each time a player met a reward condition during the recession,
> grant that player the assets associated with the reward condition, or
> if e is no longer a player, grant the same assets to the Lost and Found
> Department.
>
> For each time a player was awarded Glitter during the recession, grant
> that player a quantity of coins determined in the manner specified by
> Rule 2602, or if e is no longer a player, grant the same quantity to the
> Lost and Found Department.
>
> [This ensures no loss of coins, but shifts the responsibility for
> evaluating the missed rewards onto the Treasuror. Which is fair enough
> because it's mostly my fault. I say "mostly" because nobody else caught
> it in drafting either.]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8312
> Title: On Possibility
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as follows:
> {
> If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that a person CAN
> perform an action, but do not state the mechanism by which e can do so, e
> CAN perform it by announcement.
>
> If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that a non-person
> entity CAN perform an action, but do not state the mechanism by which e can
> do so, any person CAN cause that entity to perform that action with Agoran
> Consent.
>
> If the Rules other than this one, as a whole, provide that an action CAN be
> performed but do not specify any entities as being capable of performing
> that action, any person CAN perform that action with Agoran Consent.
>
> For the purposes of this Rule, the Rules provide a mechanism for an action
> to be performed even if they specify a mechanism with a precondition which
> is not currently met, and they specify that an entity can perform that
> action even if no appropriate entity currently exists. This Rule defers to
> all Rules which permit actions to be performed by specific mechanisms.
> }
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8313
> Title: Support of the Person
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors: G.
>
>
> Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by:
>
> 1. Replacing "However, the previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator
> of the intent is not eligible to support it." with "Announcing intent to
> perform an action implicitly announces support for that action; such
> support may be withdrawn as per usual."
> 2. Replacing "The action is to be performed With N support, and there are
> fewer than than N Supporters of that intent." with "The action is to be
> performed With N support, and there equal to or fewer than than N
> Supporters of that intent."
> 3. Replacing "The action is to be performed with N Agoran consent, and
> the number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N times
> the
> number of Objectors to the intent." with "The action is to be performed
> with N Agoran consent, and the number of Supporters of the intent is less
> than or equal to O or less than N * O, where O is the number of Objectors
> to the intent."
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8314
> Title: Finite Gifting
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2585, Birthday Gifts, by changing the text
>
> "Every time it is a player's Agoran Birthday, each of the other players
> CAN grant em 3 coins by announcement."
>
> to read
>
> "Every time it is a player's Agoran Birthday, each of the other players
> CAN once grant em 3 coins by announcement."
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8315
> Title: Clearer Resolutions
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 208 (Resolving Agoran Decisions) by replacing the third and
> fourth items in the list with the following:
> {
> 3. It specifies the quorum of the decision.
>
> 4. It specifies all the valid ballots, and no invalid ballots, on that
> decision, as of the end of the voting period, including each ballot's
> author, eir voting strength, its vote, and, if the vote is a conditional
> one, the unconditional vote to which it is evaluated.
>
> 5. The total strength of all ballots cast for each non-PRESENT option.
>
> 6. It specifies the outcome, as defined by other rules.
> }
>
> [Note that the existing "more than one option" text is basically
> tautologically true and practically useless anyway. PRESENT is an option,
> so only a decision with no other options would only have one. And even if
> we changed it, we short-circuit single-candidate elections so we might as
> well just drop that text.
>
> This is the main point of the proposal; I apologize to the Assessor that e
> does perhaps not wish to do the additional work here, but it was a
> longstanding Assessor practice and, as we are getting into the space of
> highly variable voting power again, quite necessary.]
>
> Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by appending the following
> paragraph to the end of the rule:
> {
> When used in reference to a person who has cast a vote on an Agoran
> decision, rather than to a person who is eligible to or otherwise might
> cast a vote, the term "voter" refers only to a person who has a valid
> ballot on that decision.
> }
>
> [This is slightly different from the existing definition, as it includes
> people whose votes were not valid but became valid, but such a scenario
> shouldn't happen and in any case, this lines up with existing language so
> as to prevent a weird situation where a person's vote counts towards the
> result but not quorum.]
>
> Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by replacing the text "The
> outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved, and cannot change
> thereafter." with "The outcome of a decision is fixed at the end of its
> voting period, after evaluating all votes whose values are determined only
> at the end of the voting period, and cannot change thereafter."
>
> [This prevents manipulation of voting strength post-decision from affecting
> the result because that's an absurd amount of power to offer an Assessor,
> to be able to delay or otherwise manipulate the timing of resolutions so as
> to modify voting strength after a resolution. It also simplifies eir job
> considerably by not requiring em to take into account the effects of
> proposals on voting strength as e resolves them, especially if a CoE
> results in different ordering of proposals.]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8316
> Title: Zombie voting package
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by appending the following
> paragraph:
> {{
> The above notwithstanding, at the end of the voting period for an Agoran
> decision, prior to the evaluation of conditionals, each entity who has
> never submitted a valid ballot for that decision, and for whom the Rules
> provide a default vote for that decision, automatically submits a valid
> vote on that decision for eir default vote and becomes quorum-ineligible
> for that decision. Providing an entity with a default vote on an Agoran
> decision is secured with power threshold 2.
> }}
>
> [We do not think that the "never submitted" condition is too onerous on the
> Assessor as e will be going through all the votes anyway.
>
> We would even go with "never attempted to", but we suspect that might lead
> to too much litigation, particularly because the easiest way to try and
> fail is a NttPF.]
>
> Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by inserting: {
> Designating a voter as quorum-ineligible on an Agoran decision is secured
> with Power Threshold 2; all voters are otherwise quorum-eligible.
> }
> and by replacing: {
> If there is more than one option, and the number of voters is less than the
> quorum of that decision, the outcome is instead FAILED QUORUM.
> } with {
> If there is more than one option on an Agoran decision, and the number of
> quorum-eligible voters on it is less than its quorum, its outcome is
> instead FAILED QUORUM.
> }
>
> [Cleaned up this language because there's already a definition of a voter
> applicable to R955 here in R208 (possibly moved as a result of my other
> proposal). While I don't think Gaelan's suggestion of clearing up the
> possibility of a ballot identical to a default ballot was necessary, this
> is cleaner IMO.]
>
> Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by replacing {
> If no other rule defines the quorum of an Agoran Decision, the quorum for
> that decision is equal to 2/3 of the number of voters on the Agoran
> Decision to adopt a proposal that had been most recently resolved at the
> time of that decision's initiation, the whole rounded to the nearest
> integer (breaking ties upward).
> } with {
> The Activity Level is equal to 2/3, rounded to the nearest integer and
> breaking ties upward, of the number of quorum-eligible voters on the most
> recently-resolved Agoran decision to adopt a proposal. If no other rules
> define the quorum of an Agoran decision, then the quorum of that decision
> is equal to the Activity Level at the time if its initiation.
> }
>
> Enact a new power-2 rule entitled "Zombie Voting" reading as follows:
> {{
> A zombie has its voting strength halved.
>
> The default vote of a zombie is to endorse eir master.
>
> Zombies are not quorum-eligible for any Agoran decision.
> }}
> [Rounding is already provided by R2422.]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8317
> Title: Zombie trade
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> [This proposal allows zombies to collect the fruits of their zombie
> auctions, and to allow players to voluntarily enter servitude. Yes, it does
> make buying a zombie a risky business!]
>
> Amend Rule 2483 (Economics) by replacing "Agora, players, and contracts"
> with "Agora, players, zombie trusts, and contracts".
>
> Amend Rule 2532 (Zombies) by:
> - appending "A player CAN, without 3 objections, flip eir own master switch
> to any other player. Other players SHOULD NOT object unless they believe
> that the intent is part of an attempt to flood Agora with the undead."
> - inserting "- flip eir master switch;" in the list after the first item
> - replacing "A zombie's master CAN flip that zombie's master switch to
> Agora by announcement." with "A zombie's master CAN flip that zombie's
> master switch to Agora or to any player who does not own any zombies by
> announcement."; and
> - replacing "resale value" with "integrity".
>
> Amend Rule 2574 (Zombie Life Cycle) by:
> - replacing the first two paragraphs with: {
> Any player CAN, with notice, putrefy player who has not made a public
> announcement in the past 60 days. When a player is putrefied:
> - if e is not a zombie, eir master switch is flipped to Agora; and then
> - eir integrity is set to 2.
>
> Integrity is a secured switch for zombies, tracked by the Registrar, with
> possible values of the natural numbers and "well-maintained" (default). If
> an integrity switch would be modified in a manner that assumes it is
> already a number, such as to increase or decrease it, such a modification
> leaves "well-maintained" as-is. Whenever a zombie's master switch is
> flipped from Agora to a player other than emself, eir integrity is
> decreased by 1. At the end of a zombie auction, every zombie that is an
> excess lot in that auction has eir integrity decreased by 1.
> };
> - inserting "- if a zombie is master to another zombie, flipping the second
> zombie's master switch to Agora;" after the second item in the list; and
> - replacing "resale value" with "integrity" throughout the rule.
>
> Amend Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions) by:
> - replacing "resale value" with "integrity";
> - appending "When the winner of a zombie auction pays Agora to fulfill eir
> obligation to satisfy eir bid, the coins so transferred are immediately
> transferred into trust for the zombie."
>
> Create a new power-2 Rule entitled "Zombie Trusts":
> {
> Each zombie has a zombie trust, an entity referred to as the "<zombie name>
> Trust". To place assets "in trust" to a zombie is to transfer those assets
> to that zombie's trust, and similarly for other similar language.
>
> When an active player becomes a zombie, all of eir coins are transferred
> into eir zombie trust unless e flipped eir master switch emself and
> specified otherwise in the same message. Whenever a zombie becomes active,
> all coins held in trust for em are transferred to em immediately before eir
> trust ceases to exist.
> }
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8318
> Title: Notorial Economy
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> If the Notary's Interest is the empty set, change it to [Economy].
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8319
> Title: Sergeant-at-Arms
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
>
> Amend the rule entitled "Ministries" by changing the text
> "Interest is an office switch" to read "Interest is secured office switch".
>
> Amend the rule entitled "Proposal Classes" by changing the text
> "an untracked Class switch" to read "a secured untracked Class switch".
>
> Amend the rule entitled "Proposal Chambers" by changing the text
> "Chamber is an untracked ordinary proposal switch" to read
> "Chamber is a secured untracked ordinary proposal switch".
>
> [As is, a power 1 proposal can flip interest, giving a certain officer
> infinite votes. This potentially allows for escalation of a power 1
> dictatorship. The others are secured out of an abundance of caution.]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8320
> Title: Promotorial Assignment
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Amend the rule entitled "Proposal Chambers" by adding the text
> "If a proposal in the Proposal Pool has its chamber unset, the Promotor
> CAN set the chamber to a specified ministry by announcement." at the beginning
> of the last paragraph.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8321
> Title: Untying Quorum
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Amend Rule 879, "Quorum", by deleting the text "(breaking ties upward)".
>
> [This has been bothering me for ages; I added this, but ties are impossible
> with a 2/3, so this is just confusing (and has lead to confusion on at
> least one proposal).]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
