Proto-CoE to discussion list: This incorrectly records R. Lee as
having voted even though I accidentally deregistered em.
I'm fine with just letting it self-ratify, though. I'd like to try to
start a zombie auction once we've agreed P8352 has been adopted.
- Falsifian
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 20:52, Jason Cobb via agora-official
<agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8349-8356
> =================================
>
> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
>
> The quorum for all below decisions was 7.
>
> Voting Strengths
> ================
> Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted.
> $: player has voting strength 4
> %: player has voting strength 5
> ^: player has voting strength 6
> &: player has voting strength 7
> *: player has voting strength 8
>
> PROPOSALS
> =========
> PROPOSAL 8349 (Temporary CFJ Setup)
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> CHAMBER: JUSTICE
> FOR (8): Aris%, Bernie, G.%, Jason, Murphy, Warrigal, o, sukil
> AGAINST (2): Alexis, R. Lee
> PRESENT (2): Falsifian, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 28/6 (AI=1.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> [
> Bernie: Endorsement of Jason
> Falsifian: Conditional resolved: Arbitor not AGAINST, and no Notice of Veto
> was published
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: Conditional resolved: twg not FOR, but
> Assessor not AGAINST
> ]
>
> PROPOSAL 8350 (Apologies Don't Interfere)
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> CHAMBER: JUSTICE
> FOR (11): Alexis, Aris%, Bernie, Falsifian, G.%, Jason, Murphy, Publius
> Scribonius Scholasticus, Warrigal, o, sukil
> AGAINST (1): R. Lee
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 37/3 (AI=2.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> [
> Bernie: Endorsement of Jason
> Falsifian: Endorsement of Alexis
> ]
>
> PROPOSAL 8351 (Double proposal application fix)
> CLASS: DEMOCRATIC
> FOR (11): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G., Jason, Murphy, Publius
> Scribonius Scholasticus, Warrigal, o, sukil
> AGAINST (0):
> PRESENT (1): R. Lee
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 33/0 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> [
> Bernie: Endorsement of Jason
> Falsifian: Endorsement of Jason
> ]
>
> PROPOSAL 8352 (zombie auction fix 1.1)
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> CHAMBER: ECONOMY
> FOR (11): Alexis, Aris%, Bernie, Falsifian, G., Jason, Murphy, Publius
> Scribonius Scholasticus, R. Lee, Warrigal, o
> AGAINST (0):
> PRESENT (1): sukil
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 35/0 (AI=2.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> [
> Bernie: Endorsement of Jason
> Falsifian: Endorsement of G.
> Jason: Endorsement of G.
> ]
>
> PROPOSAL 8353 (All that glisters)
> CLASS: DEMOCRATIC
> FOR (10): Alexis, Bernie, Falsifian, G., Jason, Murphy, R. Lee, Warrigal, o,
> sukil
> AGAINST (1): Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> PRESENT (1): Aris
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 30/3 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> [
> Bernie: Endorsement of Jason
> Falsifian: Endorsement of Murphy
> ]
>
> PROPOSAL 8354 (Statutory Instrumentation)
> CLASS: DEMOCRATIC
> FOR (6): Alexis, G., Murphy, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, R. Lee, o
> AGAINST (1): Warrigal
> PRESENT (5): Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Jason, sukil
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 18/3 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> [
> Bernie: Endorsement of Jason
> ]
>
> PROPOSAL 8355 (Temporary Suspension of Rules)
> CLASS: DEMOCRATIC
> FOR (7): Alexis, G., Murphy, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, R. Lee,
> Warrigal, o
> AGAINST (0):
> PRESENT (5): Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Jason, sukil
> BALLOTS: 12
> AI (F/A): 21/0 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> [
> Bernie: Endorsement of Jason
> ]
>
> PROPOSAL 8356 (Less Democracy Means More Fun)
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> CHAMBER: LEGISLATION
> FOR (8): Alexis, Aris&, Bernie, G., Jason&, Murphy, Warrigal, o
> AGAINST (2): Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, R. Lee
> PRESENT (1): sukil
> BALLOTS: 11
> AI (F/A): 32/6 (AI=2.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> [
> Bernie: Endorsement of Jason
> ]
>
> The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below:
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8349
> Title: Temporary CFJ Setup
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: twg
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Enact a new Rule of Power 1.0 entitled "Temporary CFJ Setup" with the
> following text:
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, twg CANNOT publish a Notice
> of Honour.
>
> twg CAN, by announcement, cause this Rule to repeal itself.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8350
> Title: Apologies Don't Interfere
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend rule 2555 by replacing "who has not expunged any blots in the
> current Agoran week" with "who has not, by this mechanism, expunged
> any blots in the current Agoran week".
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8351
> Title: Double proposal application fix
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2034 by replacing the text "such a proposal existed, was
> adopted, and took effect." with the text "such a proposal existed, was
> adopted, and, if it had not previously taken effect, took effect.".
>
> [Intended to make the consequences of Assessorial mishaps significantly
> easier to deal with - this will insure that a proposal does not take
> effect twice if an assessment is posted twice (the first time because it
> succeeded platonically, the second time because of self-ratification).]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8352
> Title: zombie auction fix 1.1
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions) by replacing:
> For the purpose of such a auction, to transfer a zombie to a player
> is to set that zombie's master switch to that player.
> with:
> For the purpose of such a auction, to transfer a zombie to a player
> is to set that zombie's master switch to that player, and Agora CAN
> perform such transfers of the appropriate lots to auction winners.
>
> and by inserting a line break immediately before the resulting text so
> that it is a new paragraph.
>
> Amend Rule 2551 (Auction End) by deleting "at will".
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8353
> Title: All that glisters
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Murphy
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing this text:
>
> - Otherwise, if e has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or the
> corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to
> qualify for that type of Ribbon, e CAN, by announcement, award
> emself that type of Glitter.
>
> with this text:
>
> - Otherwise, if e has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or
> the corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came
> to qualify for that type of Ribbon, and has not been so
> awarded five or more times within the past 24 hours, e CAN, by
> announcement, award emself that type of Glitter.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8354
> Title: Statutory Instrumentation
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors: Murphy, Aris, Gaelan
>
>
> =Administrative Law Reform. I. Statutory Instrumentation.=
>
> [This first proposal is a reform to the core rules defining what rules
> are, with an aim to better supporting subordinate legal documents. The
> intent is to enact very little change to the game as it is actually
> played, and to operate mostly in the realm of supporting definitions.]
>
> If this proposal has had any provision vetoed, then the entire
> proposal has no effect. If this proposal has already taken effect,
> then it has no effect.
>
> In this proposal, "I->S" is to amend a rule within the scope specified
> by replacing each instance of "an instrument" with "a statute", and
> each other instance of "instrument" with "statute". This is not a
> case-sensitive match, however, if the word "instrument" being replaced has a
> leading capital, then so does the replacement word "statute".
>
> Enact a new power-3.9 rule entitled "Statutory Instrumentation
> Simultaneity", reading:
> {{
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the proposal which enacted this
> rule CAN effect multiple rule changes, which it could otherwise effect
> individually, simultaneously. When it
> attempts to do so, if any single rule change it attempts is
> INEFFECTIVE, then so is the entire attempt.
>
> If the proposal which enacted this rule effects a change to the
> definition of a rule then, except for rules which are simultaneously
> and explicitly enacted or repealed with that change, as appropriate,
> the rules after that change are exactly the entities that were rules
> beforehand. This is a definition of the interpretation of the
> amendment to the rules and not, in and of itself, a rule change.
> }}
>
> [This proposes to make multiple interlocking amendments to critical
> rules defining rules and the interactions between themselves. This
> mitigates a real risk that, during a series of sequential changes, the
> rules would be in a nonsensical or otherwise broken state. I
> considered trying to put in a special clause preserving the effect of
> the current rules on rule changes for the duration of the proposal,
> but that wouldn't preclude the possibility of some other aspect of the
> game, such as asset holdings, doing something weird in the in-between
> state. And only a
> persistent rule could elegantly paper over that small weird gap in
> time. I think simultaneity is the better choice.]
>
> Set the power of all non-rule entities, other than this proposal, to
> 0. [This is an important safety as the change to the definition of a
> rule would potentially cause old non-rule instruments to become rules.
> Best not to consider that.]
>
> Apply the following rule changes simultaneously:
>
> {{
> Amend Rule 1688 (Power) by replacing "An Instrument is an entity with
> positive Power." with "A statute is a document with positive Power."
> Apply I->S throughout the remainder of the rule.
>
> Amend rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "set or
> modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power
> greater than its own." with "set or modify any other substantive
> aspect of an instrument with power greater than its own except as
> otherwise provided in this rule.", applying I->S throughout the rest
> of the rule, and appending a new paragraph reading "An ephemeral
> instrument is bound by prohibitions and limitations specified in rules
> of lower power, unless it explicitly overrides those prohibition(s) as
> provided for in other rules."
>
> [I don't want to consider what it would mean if PCM prevents rules
> from interfering with higher-powered proposal. Let's pretend this is
> just clarifying something super obvious to everyone.]
>
> Apply I->S throughout Rule 105 (Rule Changes).
>
> Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Instruments" reading:
> {
> An instrument is a type of document, either ephemeral or enduring,
> that is defined as such by a body of law. An instrument's text, where
> otherwise permitted, can be amended from time to time.
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an instrument other than a
> statute CANNOT become binding on a person without eir willful consent,
> however, consent can be given by implication. In particular,
> consenting to be bound to an instrument can imply consent to be bound
> by amendments to it and consent to be bound by other instruments.
> }
>
> Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Bodies of Law" reading:
> {
> A body of law is a collection of related instruments and bodies of law
> whose effects are collective and possibly interdependent, and which is
> defined as such by a body of law. The statutes of Agora form a body of
> law with unlimited scope. All other bodies of law are defined by a
> different body of law, in such a way as to be able to trace their
> origins back to the statutes of Agora. Two or more bodies of law may
> jointly define another body of law, but only each of them clearly
> expresses the intent to participate in a joint definition with each of
> the others. Otherwise, the definitions are separate, distinct, and
> unrelated.
>
> A body of law is governed by all bodies of law which, directly or
> indirectly, participate in its definition, as well as any body of law
> specified as governing it by any of its governing law. A body of law
> is subordinate to the law that governs it, other than itself, and a
> body of law is
> superior to the law that it governs, other than itself. For greater
> certainty, rules to
> the contrary notwithstanding, the statutes of Agora govern all law and
> are governed by no law except themselves, and no body of law can be
> both subordinate to and superior to another.
>
> With respect to interactions between separate bodies of law, a body of
> law is generally to be interpreted as acting harmoniously as a single
> whole. The precedence between, and organization of, instruments in a
> body of law are internal matters to that body of law and generally do
> not affect the effect of other bodies of law, except to the extent
> that they affect the body's operation as a whole.
>
> The definition of a body of law includes the definition if its scope,
> being the areas of the game that it governs. By definition, the scope
> of a body of law is no greater than the union of the scopes of the
> bodies of law that define it, nor does it include anything which would
> bring it into direct conflict with superior law. To the extent that a
> body of law's scope is not explicitly defined by superior law, it is
> as broad as possible while excluding any effect on any substantive
> aspect of any body of law, besides itself, that it does not govern.
>
> Every instrument is a direct member of exactly one body of law; if not
> specified in its definition, it is a body of law in itself. A given
> fixation of text may, however, be the text of multiple instruments,
> each in different bodies of law. The scope of an instrument is the
> scope of the body of law it forms a part of. To the extent that the
> provisions of an instrument are outside its scope, they are void and
> without effect.
> }
>
> [This is the core of the reform: a base framework for multiple
> separate, scoped bodies of law. Rather than an explicit discussion of
> precedence between laws, a framework of scoping is used. This proposal
> does not define anything outside of rules and enacted proposals as
> being instruments and thus part of this framework, in order to allow
> gradual work on areas of the ruleset such as regulations and
> contracts.
>
> The reason for "bodies of law" as separate from "instruments" is that
> frequently, bodies of law express themselves collectively. The rules
> of Agora, for instance, can only be properly interpreted as a whole.
> Definitions of entities are often spread out, sometimes to the point
> where it's nearly impossible to pinpoint a single instrument as the
> source. Bodies of law capture this concept. They also allow more
> flexibility to be introduced in proposals to come, such as making
> clear that a body of law can modify definitions in superior law
> without a conflict. We can also make rules such as Rule 2125 more
> natural using this technology, see below.
>
> More importantly, it allows us to create contracts and similar
> documents that impose obligations and have other legal effect, but
> without that possibly "creeping" upwards and affecting things outside
> their scope. Contracts, for instance, can be safely defined without
> fear that they could be used to override lower-powered rules.
>
> Bodies of law can be nested. This is to allow for, say, the Rules and
> Regulations to collectively act as a single body of law, but the Rules
> to act as a body of law within it. In the future this could be the
> basis for something like Falsifian's modules. I would rather get the
> mechanism solid and well-tested before touching precedence between
> rules, however.
>
> Governance of bodies of law cannot, however, be circular, because
> while some bodies of law like the rules are self-governing, other
> circularity could cause more significant problems by causing a law to
> be subordinate/superior to itself, and I want to avoid thinking about
> that.
>
> I've worked hard to prevent any sort of bootstrapping scam by which a
> body of law could be brought into existence out of nowhere or
> otherwise come to govern a superior body without its permission.
> Please examine closely to see if I succeeded!]
>
> Amend Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions) to read:
> {
> An action is regulated by a body of law if (1) its performance is
> limited, allowed, enabled, or permitted by that body of law; (2) that
> body of law describes the circumstances under which it would succeed
> or fail; or (3) it would, as part of its effect, modify information
> for which some person bound by that body of law is required, by that
> body of law, to be a recordkeepor.
>
> If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that doing so
> is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action from being
> performed except as described within it, including by limiting the
> methods to perform that action to those specified within it. A body of
> law does not proscribed any action which it does not regulate.
> }
>
> [I'm sad about losing the SHALL NOT there. Violating that would surely
> have been one of the great Agoran crimes, along with failing to
> carefully consider the consequences of not reading the ruleset during
> RtRW.]
>
> Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Effects of Instruments" reading:
> {
> An instrument's effect is defined by its text, as amended from time to
> time in accordance with the law governing its operation. A
> "substantive" aspect of an instrument is any aspect that affects the
> instrument's operation. If an instrument's text contains clearly
> marked comments then, they have no effect on its interpretation or
> operation except as that instrument itself specifies, although they
> remain part of its text. For the purposes of rules concerning the
> methods by which actions are performed, an instrument taking effect is
> such a method.
>
> An enduring instrument is one that it is always taking effect, to the
> extent it is permitted to so by the Rules and any other applicable
> instruments. An enduring instrument is always speaking; uses of the
> present tense in an enduring instrument are interpreted contextually
> according to the applicable rules of interpretation.
>
> An ephemeral instrument is one that takes effect only briefly, to
> effect a number of changes on the game. When it takes effect, the
> changes specified in its text are applied, provided that the
> instrument is not prohibited from doing so. Unless otherwise specified
> by the instrument or by its governing law, the provisions of an
> instrument are applied sequentially and independently, in the sense
> that the success or failure of each provision does not depend directly
> on the success or failure of any other provision.
>
> An ephemeral instrument has no ongoing effect, except to the extent
> that the changes it makes have ongoing consequences. It cannot, except
> by way of an enduring instrument, extend or delay its own effect. An
> ephemeral instrument CAN, where explicitly permitted to do so by the
> law governing it, override the effect of an enduring instrument within
> its scope by modifying, suppressing, or postponing it. Such an
> override is INEFFECTIVE unless the nature and scope of the override
> are clearly specified either in the governing law or, where so
> authorized by the governing law, in the instrument itself.
>
> An instrument or body of law is not, except where it specifies
> otherwise, bound by or restricted in any way by any subordinate law
> and implicitly overrides and takes precedence over all provisions,
> including outright prohibitions or definitions, of all subordinate
> law.
> }
>
> [This consolidates the existing rules about proposals and rules into
> one place, since they will need to be reused for other instruments. It
> also provides explicit override language, mainly intended to ensure
> that proposals can have free reign over gamestate modification, though
> that's a separate proposal. Law is not bound by any other law so as to
> make clear that proposals cannot be restricted by a contract, say.]
>
> Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attribute of Rules) to by replacing the
> first two paragraphs with the following:
> {
> A rule is an enduring statute. Every rule has a power between 0.1 and
> 4.0, inclusive. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, it is
> IMPOSSIBLE to enact a rule with power outside this range, or to change
> the power of an existing rule to a nonzero value outside this range.
> The set of all currently-existing rules is called the ruleset.
> }
>
> Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) to read as follows:
> {
> When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if the
> outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, its
> power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, it takes
> effect as an ephemeral instrument, and then its power is set to 0.
> This rule defers to rules that would prevent a proposal from taking
> effect.
> }
>
> [While this proposal does not immediately define any non-rule,
> non-proposal entities as instruments, the intent is that the creation
> of subordinate instruments comes implicitly. Thus, for instance, a
> contract can define a "sub-contract" within the scope of its own
> effect, and this would be recognized within law, once contracts are
> defined as instruments. Proposals ignore all subordinate law except as
> specified otherwise; this is a safety provision.
>
> Note that the deference provision is equivalent to the existing
> provision about preventing proposals from taking effect being secured,
> because deference does not override power as a determiner of
> precedence. So it will defer to any rule of power 3 or greater but
> take precedence over any lesser-powered rule.]
> }}
>
> Repeal the rule "Statutory Instrumentation Simultaneity" enacted
> earlier in this proposal.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8355
> Title: Temporary Suspension of Rules
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors: Murphy
>
>
> =Administrative Law Reform. II. Temporary Suspension of Rules=
>
> If no proposal entitled "Statutory Instrumentation" has taken effect
> in the previous month, this proposal has no effect. If this proposal
> has already taken effect, it has no effect.
>
> Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by appending a new paragraph
> reading "A proposal CAN override the effect of any rule which it
> is capable of amending by specifying that it does so."
>
> [This is a small side proposal to allow proposals to temporarily
> override rules without having to do so by the enactment and subsequent
> repeal of a helper rule. It must be explicit.]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8356
> Title: Less Democracy Means More Fun
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2606, "Proposal Classes", by changing the text
>
> "When a proposal with an adoption index greater than 2.0 is created,
> its class becomes democratic."
>
> to read
> "When a proposal with an adoption index greater than or equal to
> 3.0 is created, its class becomes democratic."
>
> [Note that proposals can still be turned democratic with 2 Agoran Consent.
> However, this reserves democratic status for proposals changing core
> rules or of great public concern.]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
