On 6/5/2020 9:39 PM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > On Friday, 5 June 2020, 19:11:36 GMT+1, James Cook via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> If a proposal does get enough votes, I think this makes the Assessor >> the one who violates the rule, when e resolves it. I guess Aris's "New >> Defenses" would protect em. Probably not a big deal. > > Gratuitous: in the unlikely event that a proposal that would ossify/end Agora > does end up being voted FOR, I would prefer the Assessor to not resolve it. > If resolving it were illegal, this would give em a good excuse to violate the > rules requiring em to resolve it. > > (For example, if we catch that a proposal has an ossifying effect at some > point after the voting period closes, the Assessor delaying the resolution > would likely be a necessary step in fixing the situation, buying time to, > e.g., pass a proposal to proactively negate the ossifying proposal's effects.) > > Something similar has happened in other nomics: Wooble once "forfeited" > (effectively, deregistered from) B in order to avoid having to resolve a > proposal that would end the game. (It was eventually discovered that due to > some brokenness earlier, the proposal in question had never existed, although > B was dead anyway at that point.) >
Due to deputisation, if the Assessor didn't resolve it it would basically be "without objection" to not resolve it.
