On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 7:03 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> You said you caught a bug with "slap on the wrist" but you didn't say the
> issue?
>
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 8:31 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
> agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> > >
> > > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> >
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
Sorry, it was embedded in other commentary. I realized that it doesn't
have an impact because it doesn't amend R2557.
> > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > 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.
>
>
