On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 9:17 PM Falsifian via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:25:40AM -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Alright! Here's a new proto of my proposal, "Sunlight is the Best > > Disinfectant", from a few months ago. > > > > Major changes from my last version: > > 1. Break rule 478 into two rules (it's getting really long, especially > > if you consider the annotations). > > 2. Remove the unpopular "by notification" phrasing. > > 3. Change the arbitrary "registered within the last month" to a simple > > restriction that the performer of a message must be reasonably clear. > > That gives the judiciary license to interpret it in light of > > experience, common sense, and customary practice. > > > > If you weren't around for, or don't remember, my last version, you can > > just read the proposal afresh! Questions and comments are, as always, > > welcome. > > > > -Aris > > Thanks Aris. Could you remind us of the overall purpose of the changes? > Here's a quote from your July 1 email; does that cover it? > > > I'm working on a proposal to deal with hidden actions (such a G.'s burried > > vote). It'll also handle cases where the identity of the player sending a > > message is unclear. I'm done drafting the core, but I need to handle some > > technical and confirming amendments; I should have a proto out in the next > > day or two. Just letting everyone know so we avoid duplication of effort. > > Some comments inline...
That more or less covers it, yes. Basically, I want to make our action standards clearer and stronger. It was a response to that incident and also the personhood shenanigans we had with Greg and the other person who wouldn't reveal their identity. However, it's not a narrow fix proposal, it's more a "okay, we have some potential problems, time to clean up these rules" sort of thing. > > --- > > > > Title: Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: nch, G., Jason > > > > > > Amend Rule 2202, "Ratification Without Objection", by deleting: > > > > A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message. > > > > Amend Rule 478, "Fora", by replacing: > > > > A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to > > all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be > > public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public > > message is considered a public message in its own right. To > > "publish" or "announce" something is to send a public message > > whose body contains that thing. To do something "publicly" is > > to do that thing within a public message. > > > > Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by > > announcement", that person performs that action by unambiguously > > and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs > > it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the > > time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages (including > > sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear in the > > message, unless otherwise specified. > > > > with: > > > > A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to > > all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be > > public. A document is part (possibly all) of a message. To "publish" or > > "announce" something is to send a public message whose body contains that > > thing. To do something "publicly" is to do that thing within a public > > message. > > > > Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Actions in Messages", > > with the following text: > > > > Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by > > announcement", that person performs that action by specifying the > > action and announcing that e performs it, all unambiguously and clearly. > > > > A notice is a document specifying conspicuously, clearly, and without > > obfuscation all information which the rules require that type of notice to > > contain to be valid. A notice must be public, unless a recipient is > > specified by the enabling rule. > > > > Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time > > date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages (including their > > contained > > documents) are performed in the order they appear in the message, unless > > otherwise specified. If the performer of an action in a message is > > unreasonably unclear, the action is canceled and does not occur. > > Is the "unreasonably" needed? By-announcement already has an unqualified > "clear" as a requirement. Maybe not? My concern is that I still want registrations to work, and we have no identity to tie someone to until they're registered. > > Retitle Rule 2518 from "Determinacy" to "Don't Even Think About It". > > > > Amend Rule 2518, "Don't Even Think About It", by changing it to read in > > full: > > > > The following terms are defined: > > > > 1. Clear: If something is reasonably obvious (especially, as applicable, > > by > > being reasonably visible and easy to understand), it is clear; > > otherwise > > it is unclear. > > > > 2. Ambiguous: If something has multiple reasonable interpretations > > that are substantively different and non-trivial to select between, > > it is ambiguous; otherwise it is unambiguous. > > > > 3. Conspicuous: If a text stands out so as to be visible with little > > effort, > > it is conspicuous; otherwise it is inconspicuous. > > > > 4. Obfuscated: If a text has been rendered hard to understand at a > > glance, > > it is obfuscated; otherwise it is unobfuscated. > > > > 5. Determinate: If a value can be reasonably determined (without > > circularity or paradox) from information reasonably available, and it > > does not alternate indefinitely between values, then the value is > > considered to be determinate; otherwise it is indeterminate. > > > > 6. Extricable: A condition is extricable if it is not unclear, ambiguous, > > circular, inconsistent, or paradoxical, does not depend on information > > that is indeterminate, and does not otherwise require an unreasonable > > effort to resolve; otherwise it is inextricable. > > I'm mildly against most of this change to 2518, unless you have an > argument that these defenitions are particularly helpful. (Did the > case of G.'s buried vote turn on one of these?) > > My first impression reading this was that a dictionary is sprouting from > the ruleset, which I personally prefer to be shorter where possible. My reasoning for adding these is that these words are, well, a bit confusing. What's the difference between clear and unobfuscated? What's the difference between conspicuous and clear? Yes, you can resolve most of these by use of dictionaries, but they're nuanced enough that you might end up finding that different dictionaries give definitions that conflict. Let me give "clear" as an example, because I think that's one of the messier ones. Google gives "easy to perceive, understand, or interpret." Wikitonary gives several two definitions: "Free of ambiguity or doubt." and "Distinct, sharp, well-marked." The OED provides two along similar lines: "Of words, statements, explanations, meaning: Easy to understand, fully intelligible, free from obscurity of sense, perspicuous" and "Manifest to the mind or judgement, evident, plain." Each one of those would give a different legal standard for clarity. Some of those standards are very different, some of them are more similar. While I realize that we can't define everything, these definitions felt to me like the sort of technical standards that work best when we have specific, agreed-upon tests. It also allows us to direct a new player to an explanation of our different clarity standards, the same way we can direct them to MMI for definitions of capitalized terms. Otherwise, the different clarity standards we use are just words scattered throughout the ruleset, with no guidance for a reader on how clear differs from unambiguous (and remember, they can be synonyms). Looking that up in any authoritative way requires cross-referencing multiple CFJs that interpret each of the terms. I'm not completely set on this. I could refactor it out into a separate proposal. There are definitely advantages and disadvantages here, I just think the advantages are larger. Curious to know what others think. > > Amend Rule 208, "Resolving Agoran Decisions", by replacing: > > > > The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve > > it by announcement, indicating the outcome. If it was required to > > be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it in a timely fashion after > > the end of the voting period. To be EFFECTIVE, such an attempt > > must satisfy the following conditions: > > > > 1. It is published after the voting period has ended. > > > > 2. It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved. > > > > 3. It specifies the number of voters (or a list of the voters). > > For these purposes and for determining quorum, a "voter" is > > someone who submitted a ballot on the decision that was valid > > when it was submitted and also valid (i.e. not withdrawn or > > otherwise invalidated) at the end of the voting period. > > > > 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > > was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' > > valid ballots. > > > > with: > > > > The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve > > it by publishing a Notice of Resolution. If it was required > > to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it in a timely fashion > > after the end of the voting period. To be EFFECTIVE, a Notice > > of Resolution must satisfy the following conditions: > > I'm bugged a little bit by the change to talking about whether the > Notice (rather than the attempt) is EFFECTIVE. Is the Notice itself the > thing that's supposed to have the effect (vs. the act of publishing > it?). It's probably not a problem, but it's not completely obvious to > me. > > How about "CAN resolve it by publishing a valid Notice of Resolution" > and then make these the requirements for validity rather than > EFFECTIVEness? Will do! > > 1. It is published after the voting period has ended. > > > > 2. It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved. > > > > 3. It specifies the number of voters (or a list of the voters). > > For these purposes and for determining quorum, a "voter" is > > someone who submitted a ballot on the decision that was valid > > when it was submitted and also valid (i.e. not withdrawn or > > otherwise invalidated) at the end of the voting period. > > > > 4. If there was more than one valid option, it provides a tally of the > > voters' valid ballots. > > > > 5. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and indicates that > > it resolves the decision as having that outcome. > > One overall but minor (to me) nitpick: where practical it would be nice > to have less "spot the difference". E.g. assuming 1-3 of R208 didn't > change, maybe split this amendment into two (the first paragraph, and > splitting 4 into 4 and 5). > > Your presentation does have the advantage that I get to see the context > without feverishly scrolling through the ruleset, but I have to squint a > bit to see what changed. Sure, will do. I'll put the old text in a comment for reference. > I'm not sure it's worth the effort revising anything in your existing > proto, unless others feel more strongly about it. > > -- > Falsifian
