This draft looks good to me! I have some questions or thoughts about
or related to the proposals contained (and unfortunately, I caught one
issue with "Slap on the wrist"):
On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 1:31 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> Here's a draft for this midweek distribution.
>
> -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
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 8409* Aris 3.0 College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences
> 8410# Aris 2.2 Promise Powers Patch
> 8411p R. Lee 1.0 Contract Lawyers
> 8412# R. Lee 1.7 Small Pledge Amendments
> 8413# Aris 1.0 Why Track Pendency?
> 8414# Aris 2.0 Ministerial Reshuffling
> 8415* Aris 3.0 Proposal Recycling Initiative
> 8416* Falsifian, G., P.S.S. 3.1 Identity theft protection act v1.1
> 8417# Aris, G. 1.0 PPPPPP [1]
> 8418* Aris 3.0 Referenda
> 8419# Aris 2.0 Executive Expansion
> 8420# G. 2.0 Checks and balances
> 8421# nch, Trigon 1.0 Transmutation
> 8422* P.S.S., [2] 3.0 No More Numbers!
> 8423# P.S.S., G. 2.0 Removing Repetition
> 8424# Aris, nch, P.S.S. 1.0 Certifiable Patches
> 8425# Aris 2.0 Impossibility Defense
> 8426# Aris 2.0 Impracticability Defense
> 8427j R. Lee 2.0 Slap on the wrist
> 8428* Aris 3.0 Pending Pends
> 8429# Aris 1.7 Why Limit Clemency?
>
>
> [1] Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege
> [2] G., Trigon, Aris, nch
>
> Proposal pool report: At 02:00 UTC, Friday, June 5, the proposal pool
> contained the proposals listed above.
>
> 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: 8409
> Title: College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> [I fixed the problems pointed out with the last version. I also added an
> A.N.A. degree (I hadn't done so previously, because I thought it was
> unnecessary, but exceptions are messy). I rephrased and reordered some things
> too.]
>
> Amend Rule 1367, "Degrees", by changing it to read as follows:
>
> Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are
>
> - Associate of Nomic Artistry (A.N.A.)
> - Associate of Nomic (A.N.)
> - Juris Doctorate of Nomic (J.N.)
> - Baccalaureate of Nomic Artistry (B.N.A.)
> - Baccalaureate of Nomic (B.N.)
> - Magisteriate of Nomic Artistry (M.N.A)
> - Magisteriate of Nomic (M.N.)
> - Doctorate of Nomic Artistry (D.N.Art.)
> - Doctorate of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.)
> - Doctorate of Nomic Law (D.N.Law.)
> - Doctorate of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.)
> - Doctorate of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.)
>
> There are four classes of degrees, ranked in ascending order of merit:
> Associate degrees (A.N.A. and A.N.), Baccalaureate degrees
> (J.N through B.N.), Magisteriate degrees (M.N.A and M.N), and
> Doctorate degrees (D.N.Art. through D.N.Phil.).
>
> 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. The Herald SHOULD coordinate the peer-review
> process and the awarding of degrees.
What has the precedent been for when the Herald wishes to submit a
thesis for a degree?
> Degrees SHOULD be awarded according to the extent to which the thesis
> contributes to Nomic culture or thought: Associate degrees for an
> appreciable contribution, Baccalaureate degrees for a substantial
> contribution, Magisteriate degrees for a remarkable contribution, and
> Doctorate degrees for an exceptional contribution. Any degree at the
> Doctorate level SHOULD take into account the awardee's academic history
> and participation in Agora over time.
Historically, what has been considered in the Doctorate? The general
level and quality of contributions or only previous degrees?
> Theses for Artistry degrees SHOULD demonstrate substantial creativity
> and need not be in written form. Theses for all other degrees SHOULD
> demonstrate substantial research or analysis. J.N. and D.N.Law are
> appropriate for high-quality legal analysis, of the sort typical to CFJs,
> but exceeding an ordinary CFJ in depth. The D.N.Hist. degree is
> appropriate for historical research, especially when it presents a
> narrative that educates Agorans about the events of the past. The D.N.Sci.
> degree is appropriate for theses that demonstrate concrete or scientific
> thinking, whereas the D.N.Phil. is appropriate for theses that demonstrate
> abstract or philosophical thinking.
>
> Rename every instance of the first listed patent title on each row to the
> second listed patent title on each row:
>
> - Juris Doctor of Nomic, Juris Doctorate of Nomic
> - Doctor of Nomic History, Doctorate of Nomic History
> - Doctor of Nomic Law, Doctorate of Nomic Law
> - Doctor of Nomic Science, Doctorate of Nomic Science
> - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy, Doctorate of Nomic Philosophy
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8410
> Title: Promise Powers Patch
> Adoption index: 2.2
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> [There was a bug in my original version (in the sense of it doing something
> other than what I intended); I solved the problem of people acting on behalf
> of
> their zombies to enter promises by putting an "acting as emself" requirement,
> forgetting that this also affected contracts and stopped promises from
> creating other promises. This proposal remedies my error.]
>
> Amend the rule entitled "Promises" by deleting the text "acting as emself, ".
>
> Amend Rule 2532, "Zombies", by changing the text
>
> "- enter a contract, pledge, or other type of agreement"
>
> to read
>
> "- enter a contract, pledge, promise, or other type of agreement"
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8411
> Title: Contract Lawyers
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: R. Lee
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2581 "Official Patent Titles" by appending the following
> list item at the end of the list items but before the last paragraph
> {- Terms of Service, awardable by the Notary to any player who creates
> multiple Contracts that achieve fun gameplay and significantly impacts
> Agora as a whole}
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8412
> Title: Small Pledge Amendments
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: R. Lee
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend rule 2450 "Pledges" by inserting the following sentence after
> the words "explicitly states otherwise":
> {It is also Oathbreaking for a player to let a pledge expire without taking
> an action e pledged to do in that pledge.}
>
> Also amend the same rule by replacing the text
> {and should do so if and only if the pledge no longer serves any
> significant purpose.}
> with the new text
> {but SHOULD NOT do so unless the pledge no longer serves any significant
> purpose.}
> [Nonbinding comment: The first one is a very common type of pledge but I'm
> worried that they are unenforceable. This does not extend the time limit
> forever because it is a crime for the pledge to expire and there is a
> universal 14-day statute of limitations from that point. The second
> amendment is just to capitalize something that should be capitalised and
> make the sentence a bit better]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8413
> Title: Why Track Pendency?
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> [Currently, Sets would make me track proposals forever. The simplest
> fix is just to make the Pended switch untracked. It'll end up getting
> effectively tracked anyway, since it determines whether a proposal must
> be distributed.]
>
> Amend the rule entitled "Pending Proposals" by changing the text "Pended is a
> negative boolean proposal switch tracked by the Promotor." to read
> "Pended is an untracked negative boolean proposal switch."
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8414
> Title: Ministerial Reshuffling
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2605, "Ministries", by changing the lettered list to read:
>
> A. Ministry of Economy: regulate the economy
> B. Ministry of Efficiency: maximize official efficiency
> C. Ministry of Justice: serve justice
> D. Ministry of Legislation: effectuate legislation
> E. Ministry of Participation: encourage participation
Is there a reason for which we are alphabetizing the list?
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8415
> Title: Proposal Recycling Initiative
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> [This helps for any proposals that either were distributed before the new
> regime and failed quorum, or any proposals that are accidentally distributed
> and failed quorum. While I'm at it, there's no reason this needs to be at
> power 3.0.]
>
> Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by deleting the text:
> If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as
> FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once add
> the proposal back to the Proposal Pool by announcement.
>
> Enact a new rule entitled "Proposal Recycling", with the following text:
>
> If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as
> FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once recycle
> the proposal by announcement, adding it to the Proposal Pool and causing
> it to become pended.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8416
> Title: Identity theft protection act v1.1
> Adoption index: 3.1
> Author: Falsifian
> Co-authors: G., P.S.S.
>
>
> Amend Rule 2141 by replacing the text
>
> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
>
> with
>
> Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and
> former rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor.
>
> [Comment: this version is designed to prevent the Rulekeepor from
> assigning the same ID to two rules in addition to the protection
> against changing IDs.]
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8417
> Title: Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: G.
>
>
> [I've gone with making this an "honest" popularity system, not affected
> by manipulatable mechanics such as proposal strength.]
>
> Amend the rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege"
> by changing it to read in full:
>
> For an Agoran decision on whether to adopt a proposal, let F be the total
> number of valid ballots resolving to FOR, A be the same for AGAINST,
> and T be the total number of valid ballots. The decision's popularity
> is equal to (F - A)/T. The Assessor SHOULD publish the popularity of each
> decision when resolving it.
>
In the future, I think I might propose removing this SHOULD and
replace it with a SHOULD that e identify the most popular proposal
because that takes up less space and might be easier.
> The player who proposed the adopted proposal such that the decision on
> whether
> to adopt it had the greatest popularity, among all such decisions assessed
> in
> the last 7 days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by announcement, provided
> that no decision on whether to adopt any proposal distributed in the same
> message remains unresolved. If there is a tie, all authors of the tied
> proposals can do so once each.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8418
> Title: Referenda
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 1607, "Distribution", by replacing:
>
> Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For
> this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption
> index is initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if
> the proposal does not have one, and the text, author, coauthors,
> class and (if applicable) chamber of the proposal are essential
> parameters. Initiating such a decision is known as distribution,
> and removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool.
>
> with:
>
> A referendum is the Agoran decision to determine whether to adopt a
> proposal.
> For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption index is
> initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if the proposal does
> not
> have one, and the text, author, coauthors, class and (if applicable) chamber
> of the proposal are essential parameters. Initiating a referendum is known
> as distribution, and removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool.
>
> Amend Rule 2606, "Proposal Classes", by changing the text "Agoran decision on
> its adoption" to read "referendum on it".
>
> Amend Rule 2607, "Proposal Chambers", by changing the text "Agoran decision on
> its adoption" to read "referendum on it".
>
> Amend Rule 106, "Adopting Proposals", by changing the text "a decision about
> whether to adopt a proposal" to read "a referendum on a proposal".
>
> Amend Rule 879, "Quorum", by changing the text "the Agoran decision on whether
> to adopt a proposal" to read "the referendum".
>
> Amend Rule 2168, "Extending the voting period", by changing the text
> "whether to adopt a proposal" to read "a referendum on a proposal".
>
> Amend Rule 2496, Rewards, by changing the text "FOR the decision" to read
> "FOR the referendum" and replacing:
> Resolving an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal,
> provided that no other Agoran Decision on whether to adopt that
> or any other proposal had been resolved earlier in that Agoran
> week: 5 coins (ADoP).
> with:
> Resolving a referendum, provided that no other referendum had been resolved
> earlier in that Agoran week: 5 coins (ADoP).
>
> Amend Rule 2438, "Ribbons", by changing the text "an Agoran Decision" to
> read "a referendum".
>
> If the proposal entitled "Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer
> Privilege" has passed:
> Amend the Rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" by changing it
> to read in full:
> For a referendum, let F be the total number of valid ballots resolving to
> FOR, A be the same for AGAINST, and T be the total number of valid
> ballots.
> The referendum's popularity is equal to (F - A)/T. The Assessor SHOULD
> publish the popularity of each referendum when resolving it.
>
> The player who proposed the adopted proposal whose referendum had
> the greatest popularity among all referenda assessed in the last 7 days
> CAN
> once earn one Legislative Card by announcement, provided that no
> referendum
> initiated in the same message as it remains unresolved. If there is a tie,
> all authors of the tied proposals can do so once each.
> Otherwise:
> Amend the rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" by
> changing the text "provided that no decision on whether to adopt any
> proposal
> distributed in the same message remains open." to read "provided that
> no referendum initiated in the same message remains open."
>
> [Note: One of these will fail.]
>
> Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by changing the text "If a decision of whether
> to
> adopt a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days"
> to read "If a referendum on a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the
> last seven days".
>
> Amend the rule entitled "Proposal Recycling" by changing "If a
> decision of whether
> to adopt a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days"
> to read "If a referendum on a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the
> last seven days".
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8419
> Title: Executive Expansion
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2451, "Executive Orders", to read in full:
>
> Once per week, except as otherwise forbidden by this rule, the
> current Prime Minister CAN issue a Cabinet Order by announcement
> to cause the effect specified by the order. The Prime Minister
> CANNOT issue the same executive order more than once in a month.
>
> The available Cabinet Orders are:
>
> - Certiorari: The Prime Minister assigns emself as judge
> of a specified open case.
>
> - Corram Vobis: The Prime Minister enters a specified case, the current
> judgement of which was assigned within the past quarter, into Moot.
>
> - Dive: The Prime Minister levies a fine of 2 on a
> specified player. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
> reason for the fine MAY be any grievance held by the Prime
> Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against the
> person to whom the fine is levied.
>
> - Imprimatur: The Prime Minister acts on behalf of the vote collector
> of an Agoran Decision to resolve that decision.
>
> - Manifesto: The Prime Minister distributes a specified
> proposal in the Proposal Pool.
>
> - Pardon: N of a person's blots are expunged, where N is the number
> of blots e received from a specified fine that has not previously been
> pardoned. This power SHOULD be used only when extraordinary factors
> counsel
> in favor of clemency, and any further mention of the fine SHOULD
> include the fact that it has been pardoned.
>
> - Reshuffle: The Prime Minister initiates elections for a specified
> set of elected offices.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8420
> Title: Checks and balances
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2451 (Executive Orders) by appending the following paragraph:
>
> If this rule is changed in any way, then in the 7 days
> following the change, any player CAN issue a Citizens'
> Recall by announcement. Doing so causes the office of
> Prime Minister to become vacant, and then initiates an
> election for the office if one is not already ongoing.
Is it intentional that the initiator would be a candidate?
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8421
> Title: Transmutation
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: nch
> Co-authors: Trigon
>
>
> Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "Transmutation" with the text:
>
> A player CAN pay 3 Cards (syn. transmute) to earn a Card of a
> specified type.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8422
> Title: No More Numbers!
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> Co-authors: G., Trigon, Aris, nch
>
>
> Remove the text ", as described in Rule 478" from Rule 2139, "The Registrar".
>
> Remove the text "as described in Rule 1789" from Rule 2139, "The Registrar".
>
> Remove the text "identified in Rule 1728" in Rule 2595.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8423
> Title: Removing Repetition
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> Co-authors: G.
>
>
> Remove the final paragraph and all included list items from Rule 2139,
> "The Registrar".
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8424
> Title: Certifiable Patches
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: nch, P.S.S.
>
>
> [This may be over-clear, but should be CFJ proof.]
>
> 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 pending.
>
> A player SHALL NOT certify a proposal unless its sole function is to
> minimally rectify a bug, error, or ambiguity (a problem) that relates
> 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 player certifying a
> proposal SHOULD explain why doing so does not violate this paragraph.
>
> For the purposes of this rule:
>
> 1. A bug is a situation in which a rule operates in a way that is clearly
> contrary to legislative intent or common sense.
> 2. An error is a change introduced by apparent mistake, such as the
> self-ratification of an incorrect report or a typo in a rule amendment.
> 3. An ambiguity is a state of affairs in which reasonable players could
> disagree about the operation of the rules or the state of a rule defined
> property.
> 4. A minimal rectification is one that resolves the problem without doing
> substantially more than is necessary to resolve it. For instance,
> rectification that uses more slightly words than necessary to resolve the
> problem may still be minimal, whereas a rectification that makes rule
> changes unrelated to fixing the problem would not be.
> 5. A problem relates to an office if it plausibly affects the area of
> the game the office is responsible for and relates to a CFJ if it
> could plausibly be interpreted to affect that CFJ's outcome.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8425
> Title: Impossibility Defense
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend 2531, "Defendant's Rights", by adding the following after item (2)
> of the second numbered list:
>
> (3) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for failure to take an action
> that e, through no fault of eir own, COULD NOT have performed;
> (4) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for conduct that e, through
> no fault of eir own, was obliged to undertake by a rule of equal
> or greater power to the one e violated;
> and renumbering the list accordingly.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8426
> Title: Impracticability Defense
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Amend 2531, "Defendant's Rights", by adding the following to the second
> numbered list as a new item immediately before the item beginning
> "it attempts to levy a fine with a value":
> "it attempts to levy a fine on a person taking an action or inaction e could
> not have avoided when exercising the highest reasonably possible standard
> of care;"
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8427
> Title: Slap on the wrist
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: R. Lee
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Amend rule 2555 "Blots" by replacing the text "To levy a fine of N
> on a person, where N is a positive integer, is to grant em N blots." with
> the text "To levy a fine of N on a person, where N is a positive integer or
> zero, is to grant em N blots"
This doesn't have any significant impact because R2557 still requires
that an imposition of the cold hand of justice, the means by which
almost all blots are levied, must be of at least one blot:
- B is at least 1 and at most twice the base value of the
violation.
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8428
> Title: Pending Pends
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> [This restores my ability to backdate.]
>
> Amend Rule 1607, "Distribution", by replacing:
>
> In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each
> pending proposal that was in the Proposal Pool at the beginning
> of that week, except for those excepted from automatic
> distribution by other rules, or those that are otherwise removed
> from the Pool.
>
> with:
>
> In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each
> proposal that was in the Proposal Pool and pending at the beginning
> of that week, except for those excepted from automatic
> distribution by other rules, or those that are otherwise removed
> from the Pool.
This introduces a bug: it would require the Promotor to distribute
proposals that aren't currently pending if they were previously. We
don't yet have a way for this situation to occur, but I think this
should be safeguarded by inserting the word "pending" between "each"
and "proposal".
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8429
> Title: Why Limit Clemency?
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> [This removes the arbitrary three blot limit on apology clemency.]
>
> Amend Rule 2557, "Removing Blots", by replacing:
>
> Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the
> investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable,
> specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology. If the
> investigator does so, the perp CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge P
> blots from emself, where P is the minimum of the value of the fine
> and 3, by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words and
> including all the specified words, explaining eir error, shame,
> remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
>
> with:
>
> Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the
> investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable,
> specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology. If the
> investigator does so, the perp CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge P
> blots from emself, where P is the value of the fine, by publishing a
> formal apology of at least 200 words and including all the specified words,
> explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for
> self-improvement.
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
