RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 9073-9086
=================================
ID Title Result
-------------------------------------------------------------
9073 In case of unexpected nonplayerhood ADOPTED
9074 Close enough ADOPTED
9075 No Hidden Ownership Restrictions ADOPTED
9076 FUNgibility ADOPTED
9077 Less Fragile Crystals ADOPTED
9078 Empire fixes ADOPTED
9079 Spendies v1.1 ADOPTED
9080 One from the archives ADOPTED
9081 Don't humiliate the recently departed ADOPTED
9082 yes, yes, I got the memo ADOPTED
9083 SLR ratification 2023-12-31 ADOPTED
9084 Oneironauts in the Ocean REJECTED
9085 Fix truthfulness loophole ADOPTED
9086 Trimming the most useless rule in the ruleset REJECTED
I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
The quorum for all below decisions was 5.
VOTING STRENGTHS
================
Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted.
#: player has voting strength 3
$: player has voting strength 4
%: player has voting strength 5
^: player has voting strength 6
PROPOSALS
=========
PROPOSAL 9073 (In case of unexpected nonplayerhood)
AUTHOR: Kate
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (7): Janet^, Murphy%, ais523%, juan$, kiako, nix%, snail^
AGAINST (1): R. Lee$
PRESENT (1): Gaelan
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 34/4 (AI=1.0)
POPULARITY: 0.667
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
[
Gaelan: Endorsement of non-voter Kate: Inextricable
]
PROPOSAL 9074 (Close enough)
AUTHOR: Janet
CLASS: DEMOCRATIC
FOR (6): Janet, Murphy, juan, kiako, nix, snail
AGAINST (2): R. Lee, ais523
PRESENT (1): Gaelan
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 18/6 (AI=3.0)
POPULARITY: 0.444
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
[
Murphy: Janet is the Rulekeepor: Endorsement of Janet
juan: Endorsement of snail
kiako: Janet is the Rulekeepor: Endorsement of Janet
]
PROPOSAL 9075 (No Hidden Ownership Restrictions)
AUTHOR: nix
CLASS: DEMOCRATIC
FOR (8): Gaelan, Janet, Murphy, ais523, juan, kiako, nix, snail
AGAINST (1): R. Lee
PRESENT (0):
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 24/3 (AI=3.0)
POPULARITY: 0.778
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
[
Gaelan: Endorsement of nix
]
PROPOSAL 9076 (FUNgibility)
AUTHOR: nix
CLASS: DEMOCRATIC
FOR (8): Gaelan, Janet, R. Lee, ais523, juan, kiako, nix, snail
AGAINST (0):
PRESENT (1): Murphy
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 24/0 (AI=3.0)
POPULARITY: 0.889
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
[
Gaelan: Endorsement of nix
ais523: Conditional resolved: ais523 was not endorsed
]
PROPOSAL 9077 (Less Fragile Crystals)
AUTHOR: snail
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (6): Gaelan, Murphy%, R. Lee$, juan$, kiako, snail^
AGAINST (0):
PRESENT (3): Janet^, ais523%, nix%
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 25/0 (AI=1.0)
POPULARITY: 0.667
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
[
Gaelan: Endorsement of snail
Murphy: R. Lee is the Geologist: Endorsement of R. Lee
]
PROPOSAL 9078 (Empire fixes)
AUTHOR: Janet
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (7): Gaelan, Janet^, Murphy%, ais523%, juan$, kiako, snail^
AGAINST (0):
PRESENT (2): R. Lee$, nix%
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 32/0 (AI=1.0)
POPULARITY: 0.778
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
[
Gaelan: Endorsement of Janet
]
PROPOSAL 9079 (Spendies v1.1)
AUTHOR: nix
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (9): Gaelan, Janet^, Murphy%, R. Lee$, ais523%, juan$, kiako, nix%, snail^
AGAINST (0):
PRESENT (0):
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 41/0 (AI=2.0)
POPULARITY: 1.000
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
[
Gaelan: nix did not vote AGAINST: Endorsement of snail
kiako: Endorsement of nix
]
PROPOSAL 9080 (One from the archives)
AUTHOR: Gaelan
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (8): Gaelan, Janet^, Murphy%, ais523%, juan$, kiako, nix%, snail^
AGAINST (1): R. Lee$
PRESENT (0):
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 37/4 (AI=1.0)
POPULARITY: 0.778
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
PROPOSAL 9081 (Don't humiliate the recently departed)
AUTHOR: Gaelan
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (5): Gaelan, Murphy%, ais523%, juan$, snail^
AGAINST (1): R. Lee$
PRESENT (3): Janet^, kiako, nix%
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 23/4 (AI=2.0)
POPULARITY: 0.444
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
[
kiako: Janet is the Assessor: Endorsement of Janet
]
PROPOSAL 9082 (yes, yes, I got the memo)
AUTHOR: Gaelan
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (4): Janet^, Murphy%, R. Lee$, ais523%
AGAINST (2): kiako, snail^
PRESENT (3): Gaelan, juan$, nix%
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 20/9 (AI=1.7)
POPULARITY: 0.222
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
PROPOSAL 9083 (SLR ratification 2023-12-31)
AUTHOR: Janet
CLASS: DEMOCRATIC
FOR (4): Murphy, ais523, juan, nix
AGAINST (0):
PRESENT (5): Gaelan, Janet, R. Lee, kiako, snail
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 12/0 (AI=3.0)
POPULARITY: 0.444
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
[
Gaelan: Endorsement of Janet
kiako: Janet is the Rulekeepor: Endorsement of Janet
snail: Endorsement of Janet
]
PROPOSAL 9084 (Oneironauts in the Ocean)
AUTHOR: kiako
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (3): Gaelan, kiako, nix%
AGAINST (2): Janet^, R. Lee$
PRESENT (4): Murphy%, ais523%, juan$, snail^
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 11/10 (AI=2.0)
POPULARITY: 0.111
OUTCOME: REJECTED
[
Murphy: snail is the Dream Keeper: Endorsement of snail
]
PROPOSAL 9085 (Fix truthfulness loophole)
AUTHOR: ais523
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (8): Gaelan, Janet^, Murphy%, R. Lee$, ais523%, kiako, nix%, snail^
AGAINST (0):
PRESENT (1): juan$
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 37/0 (AI=1.0)
POPULARITY: 0.889
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
[
Gaelan: Endorsement of ais523
snail: Endorsement of ais523
]
PROPOSAL 9086 (Trimming the most useless rule in the ruleset)
AUTHOR: R. Lee
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (1): R. Lee$
AGAINST (7): Gaelan, Janet^, Murphy%, ais523%, juan$, kiako, snail^
PRESENT (1): nix%
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 4/32 (AI=1.0)
POPULARITY: -0.667
OUTCOME: REJECTED
[
Gaelan: Conditional resolved: The Boulder is not at 0 or 1.
Janet: Endorsement of ais523
]
The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below:
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 9073
Title: In case of unexpected nonplayerhood
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Kate
Co-authors: Gaelan
In Rule 2492 (Recusal),
s/deregistered/unregistered
[Allows a judge to be removed if, through some mishap, the CFJ has
been assigned to someone who has never been a player or who ceased to
be a player through some means other than deregistration. Composition
fully intended to annoy Janet, but I think completely effective under
the new standard of "clear to a reasonable player".]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 9074
Title: Close enough
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Janet
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 105 by deleting the text " and the next change identifier".
[Remove the reference to "change identifiers" (presumably just revision
numbers) for reenactment.]
Amend Rule 1681 by, as a single amendment, deleting the text ", revision
number, " and inserting the following paragraph after the paragraph
beginning "The listing of each rule in the SLR":
{
The listing of each rule in the SLR must additionally include a
reasonably accurate approximation of the number of changes made to the
rule (the rule's revision number). The Rulekeepor may exercise
reasonable discretion in calculating revision numbers.
}
[Define what a rule's "revision number" is and explicitly grant the
Rulekeepor discretion in calculating it (e.g. not counting certain
amendments (back when we used Suber-style proposals that re-numbered
rules) or skipping revision numbers (for historical reasons).]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 9075
Title: No Hidden Ownership Restrictions
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: nix
Co-authors: Janet, kiako
[Right now, sentences like "Blank are an asset ownable by..." is
interpreted to adding to a default within R2576. This seems unintuitive.
This proposal makes that default only apply if there's no mention of
ownership.]
Amend R2576 (Ownership) by replacing:
If ownership of an asset is restricted to a class of entities, then
that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside
that class. By default, ownership of an asset is restricted to
Agora, players, and contracts, but an asset's backing document may
modify this.
with:
An asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity unless its
backing document specifies that entity can own it. If an asset's
backing document is otherwise silent on which entities can own it,
then it can be owned by Agora, players, and contracts.
Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing:
Stamps are a category of asset ownable by players .
with:
Stamps are a category of asset ownable by players and Agora.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 9076
Title: FUNgibility
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: nix
Co-authors:
[Right now, sentences like "Blank are an asset ownable by..." is
interpreted to adding to a default within R2576. This seems unintuitive.
This proposal makes that default only apply if there's no mention of
ownership.]
Retitle R2578 (Currencies) to "Fungibility"
Amend R2578 to read in full:
A fungible asset is one where two instances of it are considered
equivalent if they have the same owner, for the purposes of
specification, granting, and transferring. The total amount of a
fungible asset that an entity owns is also know as that entities
"balance" of that asset.
Amend R2659 (Stamps) by replacing:
Stamps of a given type are a currency.
with:
Stamps of a given type are fungible.
Amend R2555 (Blots) by replacing:
Blots are an indestructible fixed currency
with:
Blots are an indestructible fixed fungible asset
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 9077
Title: Less Fragile Crystals
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: snail
Co-authors:
[Makes it so crystals can't be destroyed by the player that owns them,
which doesn't seem fun. Also gets rid of the "repeal this rule once someone
wins" part since we can just do that by proposal if we want. I'd rather it
stay around by default.]
Amend Rule 2685 (Crystals) by replacing
{
A crystal is an asset with secured integer switches identity, size
(default 0), and instability (default 0).
}
with
{
A crystal is an indestructible asset with secured integer switches
identity, size
(default 0), and instability (default 0).
}
and by replacing
{
Any player CAN, by announcement, Shatter the System, specifying
each crystallized player, and provided that no player has done so
in the past 30 days. When a player does so, each crystallized
player wins the game.
If at least 4 days have passed since any player won the game in
this manner, any player CAN repeal this rule by announcement.
}
with
{
Any player CAN, by announcement, Shatter the System, specifying
at least 1 crystallized player, and provided that no person has done
so
in the past 30 days. When a player does so, each crystallized
player wins the game.
If a player won the game in this manner 4 days ago, then all existing
crystals are destroyed.
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 9078
Title: Empire fixes
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Janet
Co-authors:
Amend the Rule entitled "Agora of Empires" by, as a single amendment
(using the following steps, as if they were applied in order, to compute
the final text):
* Replacing the text "There exists a document known as the Empireworld"
with "There exists a document, initially empty, known as the Empireworld".
* Replacing each instance of the text "CfJ" with the text "CFJ".
* Replacing the text "when ey believe it to be appropriate" with "when
they believe it to be appropriate". [The antecedent is "Imperials",
which is plural.]
* Replacing the final paragraph with the following:
{
An Imperial CAN, without 2 objections, Dominate the World provided that
(1) the Empireworld shows that e has accomplished at least 3
extraordinary feats in the fictional world that the Empireworld
describes since e last won the game as a result of this Rule and that
(2) no person has won the game as a result of this Rule in the past 30
days. When a player Dominates the World, e wins the game.
This Rule does not describe what qualifies as an extraordinary feat.
}
Set the Empireworld to what it would be had it been empty initially
after the enactment of the Rule entitled "Agora of Empires".
[Fixes the uninitialized state, fixes minor grammar issues, does the
standard win indirection, and removes the double "by announcement" and
"without 2 objections" method for winning (which *shouldn't* allow by
announcement wins by precedent, but should be fixed in any case).]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 9079
Title: Spendies v1.1
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: nix
Co-authors: Janet, kiako
[Spendies are simple. We all start with the same amount every month,
and if you don't use them you lose them. You can transfer them, put
them in contracts, etc. But they will go away. What's important is what
you do with them in that month.]
Enact a new (Power=1) rule titled Spendies with the text:
Spendies are a currency ownable by players and contracts. Spendies
are tracked by the Spendor in eir weekly report.
At the end of each month, all Spendies are destroyed. At the
beginning of each month, every player is granted 20 Spendies.
[Quick compatibility with another proposal]
If a proposal titled "FUNgibility" and authored by nix has been adopted
within the last 90 days, amend the rule titled "Spendies" to replace
"currency" with "fungible liquid asset".
[Delete dream of wandering.]
Repeal R2675 (Dream of Wandering).
[Below stones are simplified, similarly to the stamp specialization
proposal I made previously. You simply buy them for a cost that
decreases every month while the stone has the same owner.]
Amend R2640 (Stones) by replacing:
A stone is a unique indestructible liquid asset
with:
A stone is a unique indestructible fixed asset
and deleting its last two paragraphs.
Amend R2641 (Wielding Stones) by replacing:
While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it or to transfer it
by announcement.
with:
While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it.
Retitle R2642 (Gathering Stones) to "Stone Cost" and then amend R2642 to
read in full:
Stone Cost is a Stone switch with values of non-negative integers
and a default of 10. Stone Cost is tracked by the Stonemason.
Any player CAN pay a fee of X Spendies to transfer a specified stone
to emself, where X is the current Stone Cost of the specified stone.
When a stone is transferred, its Stone Cost is set to the default.
At the beginning of every week, the Stone Cost for each stone is
reduced by 1, to a minimum of 0.
Repeal R2642 (Gathering Stones).
[Similarly, let's include stamps. Remember Dreams are gone, so this is
now the primary way to get new stamps. Use Spendies to get stamps from
L&FD, or mint more of your own. There's some modifications to the cost
to account for scale, which also discourages timing scams somewhat.]
Amend R2659 (Stamps) by appending the following paragraphs:
Any player CAN pay a fee of 5 Spendies to grant emself X stamps of
eir own type. When less than 8 Stamps of eir type exist, X is 2.
When 8 to 15 Stamps of eir type exist, X is 1. When 16 or more
stamps of eir type exist, X is 0.
Any player CAN pay a fee of 5 + (X) Spendies to transfer a
specified stamp from the L&FD to emself. X is equal to the number of
times e has already done so in the current month.
[Finally, you can buy some radiance, tho the cost is fairly high. Might
push you across the finish line tho, or at least give a use for some
spare Spendies.]
Amend R2656 (Radiance) by appending the following paragraph:
Any player CAN increase eir radiance by 1 by paying a fee of 2
Spendies.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 9080
Title: One from the archives
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Gaelan
Co-authors: Kate
Re-enact rule 417, with the following text: {
The Archivist is an office; its holder is responsible for ensuring
the continued availability of documents of historical interest.
The archivist’s monthly report contains:
* Instructions for accessing collections of:
* Texts of each historic rule revision.
* Texts of each proposal.
* Judicial cases.
* Public messages.
* Messages to discussion fora.
* Theses for which a person was awarded a degree.
* Optionally, any other documents the Archivist deems worthy
of archival.
* A description of the completeness of each of the above
collections.
The referenced collections NEED NOT be perfectly complete or
accurate, but the Archivist SHOULD work towards improving
their completeness and accuracy.
}
Re-title rule 417 to “The Archivist”.
Amend Rule 2581 by appending the following item to the list: {
- Archaeologist, awardable by the Archivist to any player who
makes a significant contribution to filling in missing
historical records.
}
Make Gaelan the Archivist.
[History for the Rulekeepor’s benefit, copied from Zefram’s rule
archive:
??? by Proposal 417 [presumably enacted - Gaelan]
Amended(1) by Proposal 1302, 4 November 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1741, 15 October 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2029, 28 November 1995
Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 23 January 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996
Amended(8) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996
Null-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996
Repealed as Power=1 Rule 417 by Proposal 3787 (Steve), 8 September 1998
]
[This is intentionally written loosely to allow the Archivist to
defer to existing archives - for example that maintained by the
CotC - where appropriate.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 9081
Title: Don't humiliate the recently departed
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Gaelan
Co-authors:
Amend rule 2168 ("Extending the Voting Period”) by replacing "despite being
eligible” with "despite being eligible players”.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 9082
Title: yes, yes, I got the memo
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: Gaelan
Co-authors:
Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
it has one).
} with {
A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
already been investigated.
}
[Currently, if an infraction is noted after it is investigated,
the Investigator SHALL but CANNOT investigate it. This would be
automatically forgiven by 2531, so it’s not an issue in practice,
but let’s fix it properly.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 9083
Title: SLR ratification 2023-12-31
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Janet
Co-authors:
Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published by Janet on or about December
31, 2023 at 21:12:14 UTC, available at [0].
[0]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-December/017538.html
[I was required to submit such a proposal for Ratify the Ruleset Week
but forgot to. Sorry.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 9085
Title: Fix truthfulness loophole
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: ais523
Co-authors:
In rule 2471, replace
"The author believed the statement to be not true."
with
"The author did not believe the statement to be true."
[Under the existing rules, it's possible to legally make a statement
under penalty of No Faking, when you have no idea whether or not the
statement is true – neither of the existing clauses apply, because you
neither believe it to be not true, nor should have known that it was
false. This makes the "penalty of No Faking" ineffective for one of its
primary purposes, of allowing people to introduce new facts into the
judicial record based on their own personal knowledge.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
With respect to the referendum on Proposal 9083, the following statement
is published for the purpose of self-ratification under Rule 2034:
{
The following are true:
1. The Agoran decision on whether to adopt Proposal 9083 existed,
2. it had 9 voters,
3. it was resolved as ADOPTED, and
4. Proposal 9083 existed, had the attributes listed for Proposal 9083
above in this message, was adopted, and, if it had not previously taken
effect, took effect.
}
