On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:25 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:43 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:37 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:35 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > > > agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:02 AM nch via agora-discussion > > > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:41:14 AM CDT Aris Merchant via > > > > agora-business > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > I submit the following proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Title: Certifiable Patches > > > > > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > > > > > Author: Aris > > > > > > Co-author(s): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Enact a new power 1.0 rule, entitled "Certifiable Patches", with the > > > > > > following text: > > > > > > Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as > > > > > > a > > > > > > patch), causing it to become pended. > > > > > > > > > > > > A player SHALL NOT certify a proposal unless its primary function > > > > > > is to rectify a bug, error, or ambiguity that relates > > > > > > substantially > > > > > > to a) an office e holds; or b) a CFJ, open within the last week, > > > > > > of > > > > > > which e is the judge. Certifying a proposal in violation of this > > > > > > paragraph is the Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification. A > > > > > > person > > > > > > certifying a proposal SHOULD explain why doing so does not violate > > > > > > this paragraph. > > > > > > > > > > This seems like it'll cause a lot of CFJs and uncertainty. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > nch > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you elaborate on this? As I see it, there would be no reason for > > > > more CFJs to occur under this rule. > > > > > > > > > > There would be regular CFJs about what relates to rectifying, etc etc. > > > Referee doesn't have full discretion on these things, e can be overruled > > > by > > > CFJ. > > > > > > -- > > > From R. Lee > > > > That makes sense, but my reading of the rules — which, if I recall > > correctly G. has also stated — is that only a fine can be questioned > > by CFJ not a finding of shenanigans. I can say that my general > > standard would be to err on the side of leniency unless it is clear > > that others have strong feelings to the contrary. In general, my > > assumption was that we would be reasonably agreable on these matters. > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 11:38 AM nch via agora-discussion > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 10:34:29 AM CDT you wrote: > > > > Could you elaborate on this? As I see it, there would be no reason for > > > > more CFJs to occur under this rule. > > > > > > How is "primary function" determined? Is G's complete rewrite of the > > > auction > > > rule primarily a bug fix? > > > > > > -- > > > nch > > > > > > > Based off of the phrasing of the rule, I think it would be a bug fix > > because it isn't more specific. I think it might be better if we > > said, "minimally rectify", to make it clear that it only applied to > > the minimal change necessary. > > What do y'all think of this proto? > > -Aris > --- > Title: Certifiable Patches > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-author(s): nch, P.S.S. > > > [This may be over-clear, but should be CFJ proof.] >
This looks good to me. Possibly a bit over-clear, but we probably need that at first and can rectify later if we want.
