On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I spend an AP to CFJ: The below-quoted document contains a self-ratifying > list > of proposals in the Proposal Pool. I recuse Gaelan from CFJ 3576. I remove Gaelan from the list of interested judges. I assign CFJ 3576 to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. > Arguments: does this count as a portion of a purported Promotor's report? > There > is no information in the report which isn't in the document, and this is > clearly > published by the Promotor with the intent to convey all of the report's > information. The subject further implies it was a report. > Evidence: > rules 1607 and 2201 > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:38 Aris Merchant, > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > This following is a revision to the proposal pool from my last report. > > The proposal pool contains the following proposals: > > ID Author(s) AI Title > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > pp1 nichdel 3.0 Slower Promotion > pp2 nichdel 1.0 Guaranteed Stampage > pp3* Alexis 3.0 Clarity Act > pp4* Gaelan 1.0 Another Economy Fix Attempt > > Legend: <ID>* : Proposal is pending. > > The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > ID: pp1 > Title: Slower Promotion > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: nichdel > Co-authors: > > > Amend R1607 (Distribution) by replacing: > > In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir weekly > duties, > distribute all pending proposals. > > with > > In a given Agoran week, as part of eir weekly duties, the Promotor > SHALL: > > * distribute all pending proposals if there are no unresolved > Agoran > decisions to adopt a proposal. > > * list all unresolved Agoran decisions to adopt a proposal. The > Promotor > MAY still distribute all pending proposals. > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > ID: pp2 > Title: Guaranteed Stampage > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: nichdel > Co-authors: > > > Amend 2499 "Welcome Packages" to read in full: > > If a player has not received one since e most recently became a > player, any player CAN, by announcement, cause em to receive a > Welcome package. When a player receives a Welcome Package: > > * Agora transfers em 1/10th the FV in shinies and > > * a Stamp, with Agora as the Creater, is created in eir > possession. > > Amend R2498 to be titled "Stamps" and to read in full: > > Stamps are an asset. The Secretary is the recordkeepor of Stamps. > > Each Stamp has an associated Creater which SHOULD be noted whenever > the Stamp > is mentioned and MUST be noted whenever the Stamp is transfered. > Stamps with > the same creater are fungible. > > Once per month a player CAN, by announcement, create a Stamp with > themselves > as the Creater by transferring the Stamp Value, in shinies, to Agora. > > If Agora owns at least as many Shinies as the current Stamp Value, a > player > CAN, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns to cause Agora to > transfer the > Stamp Value, in shinies, to emself. > > Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Stamp Wins" with the following text: > > If a player owns 10 stamps with different Creaters, none of which > have Agora > as its Creater, e CAN win by announcement. Doing so destroys the > specified > stamps. > > Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Basic Stamp Income" with the following > text: > > When the Secretary publishes the first Weekly Report of an Agoran > Month, e > CAN and SHALL, by announcement, create Stamps with Agora as the > Creater and > transfer them to any player who has no stamps and less than the Stamp > Value > in shinies at the time of publication. > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > ID: pp3 > Title: Clarity Act > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Alexis > Co-authors: > > Text in square brackets is not a part of this proposal's substance and > is ignored when it takes effect. > > Enact a new power 3 rule entitled Voting Methods, reading as follows: > Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which must be > AI-majority, instant runoff, or first-past-the-post. The voting > method is that specified by the authorizing authority, or > first-past-the-post by default. > > Each Agoran decision has a set of valid options (the choices that > the voters are being asked to select from) and valid votes (the > ways in which the voters can express their opinion or lack > thereof. > For AI-majority decisions, the valid options are FOR and AGAINST; > for other decisions, the valid options are defined by other rules. > > The valid votes on an Agoran decision are: > 1. PRESENT; > 2. The valid conditional votes, as defined by rules of power at > least that of this rule; and > 3. For an instant runoff decision, the ordered lists of entities. > 4. For any other decision, the valid options. > > [This splits off the portion of 955 that isn't actually related to > resolution. The definition of instant runoff is changed to evaluate > validity of options at the end of the voting period, and avoid > retroactively invalidating votes if an option drops out.] > > Amend Rule 955 by replacing the second paragraph and numbered list with > the following and by deleting the second bullet in the unnumbered list. > 1. For an AI-majority decision, let F be the total strength of all > valid ballots cast FOR a decision, A be the same for AGAINST, > and AI be the adoption index of the decision. The outcome is > ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A > 1 (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise > REJECTED. > > 2. For an instant runoff decision, the outcome is whichever option > wins according to the standard definition of instant runoff. > For this purpose, a ballot of strength N is treated as if it > were N distinct ballots expressing the same preferences. In > case multiple valid options tie for the lowest number of votes > at any stage, the vote collector CAN and must, in the > announcement of the decision's resolution, select one such > option to eliminate; if, for M > 1, all eir possible choices in > the next M stages would result in the same set of options being > eliminated, e need not specify the order of elimination. If an > entity that is part of a valid vote is not a valid option at > the end of the voting period, or disqualified by the rule > providing for the decision, then that entity is eliminated > prior to the first round of counting. > > 3. For a first-past-the-post decision, the outcome is whichever > option received the highest total strength of valid ballots. In > case of a tie, the vote collector CAN and must, in the > announcement of the decision's resolution, select one of the > leaders as the outcome. > > [No change here, except for removing the valid votes, and clearly > specifying what happens to options that are no longer valid at the end > of the voting period.] > > If the text "The rule providing for an Agoran Decision by instant runoff > may disqualify one or more options; in such a case, they are eliminated > prior to beginning the first stage of the vote count." appears in Rule > 955, delete it. > > [Coordinating amendment to the Election Procedure proposal. H. Assessor, > please resolve that one first.] > > Amend Rule 2127 to read as follows: > A conditional vote on an Agoran decision is a vote which indicates > a vote based on some condition(s). A conditional vote is evaluated > at the end of the voting period and, rules to the contrary > notwithstanding, is clearly specified if and only if the value of > the condition(s) is/are determinate at the end of the voting > period. If the conditional is clearly specified, and evaluates to > a valid vote, it is counted as that vote; otherwise, it is counted > as PRESENT. > > Any vote which is clearly expressed as a conditional, e.g. "FOR if > <X> is true, AGAINST otherwise", is a valid conditional vote that > evaluates as specified. > > A vote endorsing another person is equivalent to a conditional > vote evaluating to the vote specified in that person's valid > ballot on the decision, if any. > > For an instant runoff decision, a vote consisting of a list, one > or more entries of which are valid conditional votes, and the > remaining entries of which are valid options, is a valid > conditional vote. Such a vote is evaluated by evaluating each > conditional entry to a list of votes (or an empty list, if it > evaluates to PRESENT either directly or indirectly), and then > concatenating those lists with the specified valid options in the > order they occurred in the original vote. > > [New conditional vote rule clearly specifies what conditional votes are > valid, as well as providing for evaluation of conditional lists in > instant runoff in the sensible way.] > > Amend Rule 2438 by replacing the paragraph describing Orange > Ribbons with: > > Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on > which no valid ballots were AGAINST (after evaluating > conditionals), its proposer earns an Orange Ribbon. > > Award G. a Transparent Ribbon. > > [I accept that it's fair that this may not actually be a problem, > but clarifying it and converging gamestate does not hurt.] > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > ID: pp4 > Title: Another Economy Fix Attempt > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Gaelan > Co-authors: > > > Create a power-1 rule titled "Keep it up" with the following text: > === > If an action defined entirely by the rules that would otherwise be > POSSIBLE for a player to perform is IMPOSSIBLE due to Agora having a > low shiny balance, that player may win the game with 2 Days Notice. > Upon doing so, half of all player's shiny balances (rounded down) are > transferred to Agora. > === > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > >
