Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Shame! (7471-7472)
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > For each player in the quoted list other than Murphy and FSX, I > intend, without objection, to make em inactive. I object to all intents to inactivate Ienpw, as e recently showed signs of interest, and Walker and Roujo, as they both voted on the previous distribution.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Yak niggles
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> I submit this proposal with Walker as co-author and PF 25.
>
> -scshunt
I withdraw this proposal.
Proposal: Disinterested Changes (AI=2, PF=25, coauthors=omd, Walker)
{{{
Amend Rule 1607 (Distribution) by replacing
In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir
weekly duties:
a) distribute no more than MI pending proposals with such that
the sum of the Distributabilities of the distributed
proposals is maximised, breaking ties in favour of proposals
which were submitted first, and
b) distribute all disinterested pending proposals.
with:
In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir
weekly duties:
a) distribute MI pending proposals (or all, if there are fewer than
MI of them) such that the sum of the Distributabilities of the
distributed proposals is maximised, and
b) distribute all disinterested pending proposals.
[let the Promotor choose between proposals of equal distributability,
require distribution of distributability-0 proposals which I think was
an oversight]
Amend "Proposal Fees" by removing "Subsequently, it CAN be set by any
player without two objections." and appending
A proposal with a proposal fee of 0 is disinterested; proposals
with positive proposal fees are interested.
Amend "Distributability" by removing
A disinterested proposal is a proposal identified as such when
submitted. If a proposal is disinterested, this is an essential
parameter of the decision of whether to adopt it. The remainder
of the rules notwithstanding, the proposal fee of a
disinterested proposal is 0 and CANNOT be set or changed to any
other value.
}}}
-scshunt
BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Shame! (7471-7472)
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:32 AM, omd wrote: > The following nimwits have failed to vote on 7471-7472 despite being eligible: > > ehird > Henri > Ienpw III > Max Schutz > Murphy > Roujo > Walker > Wes > Yally > > Special credit for FSX for trying to vote despite not being eligible > yet (I believe I accidentally misled him on this matter). > For each player in the quoted list other than Murphy and FSX, I intend, without objection, to make em inactive. -scshunt
BUS: A few proposals
Proposal: Abandoned means Abandoned (AI=1, disinterested)
{{{
In rule 2369, replace "E SHALL inform that nomic of the change in a
timely fashion." with "Unless its new recognition is Abandoned, e
SHALL inform that nomic of the change in a timely fashion.
}}}
Proposal: Appropriateness (AI=2, distinterested)
{{{
In rule 1504, replace "TIME OUT with a number of days between 7 and
21" with "TIME OUT with a number of days between 7 and 21, appropriate
for rule breaches of moderate consequence".
}}}
-scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Yak niggles
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Charles Walker
wrote:
> On 30 May 2013 19:58, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> Yeah. In my experience, distribution fees are hurtful to new players and a
>> great way to slow the game down even further in a lull. MI seems like a nice
>> way to deal with that, and I don't think we should throw a distributability
>> fee in.
>
> Ok. Is the following acceptable to everyone? I also include a tweak to
> the definition of disinterested.
>
> { Distribution Changes (AI 2)
>
> Amend Rule 1607 (Distribution) by replacing
>
> In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir
> weekly duties, distribute the N pending proposals with the
> highest non-zero Distributability, breaking ties in favour of
> proposals which were submitted first, where N is equal to the
> MI. The Promotor SHALL also, as part of eir weekly duties,
> distribute all disinterested pending proposals.
>
> with:
>
> In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir
> weekly duties:
> a) distribute the MI pending proposals with the highest
> Distributability, breaking ties in favour of proposals which
> were submitted first, and
> b) distribute all disinterested pending proposals.
>
> Amend "Proposal Fees" by removing "Subsequently, it CAN be set by any
> player without two objections." and appending
>
> A proposal with a proposal fee of 0 is disinterested; proposals
> with positive proposal fees are interested.
>
> Amend "Distributability" by removing
>
> A disinterested proposal is a proposal identified as such when
> submitted. If a proposal is disinterested, this is an essential
> parameter of the decision of whether to adopt it. The remainder
> of the rules notwithstanding, the proposal fee of a
> disinterested proposal is 0 and CANNOT be set or changed to any
> other value.
>
> }
>
I submit this proposal with Walker as co-author and PF 25.
-scshunt
BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7453-70
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, omd wrote: > Voting results for Proposals 7453-70: CoE: This should be correct but I forgot to explicitly describe conditional votes, which may or may not be necessary. Admitted, they were: 7458 woggle endorse IADoP (scshunt) -> PRESENT 7459 woggle endorse Assessor (Murphy) -> PRESENT 7461 G. endorse Promotor -> FOR 7465 woggle endorse Murphy -> PRESENT 7466 woggle endorse Murphy -> PRESENT 7467 G. endorse Murphy -> PRESENT
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7453-7469
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > CoE: This is not the full text of this proposal, which included > changes to the definition of 'disinterested'. Denied. That was a proto; the submitted version is quoted correctly.
BUS: Promise
I submit a promise with text {I spend a single VC to increase the
specified player's VVLOP by one.}, conditions for cashing {The casher
has, as a cost to cash this promise, increased my VVLOP by one.}, and
conditions for author destruction {True.}
-scshunt
BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7453-70
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:29 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:24 AM, omd wrote: >> I assume Assessor. >> >> Voting results for Proposals 7453-70: > > CoE: The office of Assessor is still Postulated until the sentence > goes into effect and as such this entire distribution is INEFFECTIVE. > > -scshunt Withdrawn because I forgot that we changed how sentencing effects work. -scshunt
BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7453-70
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:24 AM, omd wrote: > I assume Assessor. > > Voting results for Proposals 7453-70: CoE: The office of Assessor is still Postulated until the sentence goes into effect and as such this entire distribution is INEFFECTIVE. -scshunt
Re: BUS: Herald Oops
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Sean Hunt
> >> wrote:
> >> > I intend, without objection, to award Murphy the Patent Title of
> >> > "Indispensable Do-Nothing"
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Sean Hunt
> >> wrote:
> >> > After something was pointed out to me on ##nomic, I intend, without
> >> > objection, to award scshunt the Patent Title of "Head of the Agoran
> >> > Ceremonial Mint".
> >> >
> >> > I intend, without objection, to award scshunt the Patent Title of "Chief
> >> > Yoyo"
> >>
> >> Apparently I can't read rules today. I withdraw the above intents and
> >> for each of them, intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award the
> >> specified Patent Title to the specified player.
> >
> > I Object to both of these - seems like overly ephemeral clutter. -G.
>
> I CFJ {In the quoted text, G. objected to a dependent action.}
Oops. To make it clear, I object to EACH AND EVERY intent to award a patent
title in the quotes above.
> Also, G., a) the middle one was adopted by proposal that failed only
> due to insufficient power, and do you think that "The Herald CAN award
> a specified Patent Title not already defined by any Rule or held by
> any entity to a specified player With 2 Agoran Consent." is intended
> for something other than overly ephemeral clutter?
It's wholly subjective definition of "overly", I admit. I just don't think
the specific ones here are that worthy of long-term remembrance.
-G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador-at-Large][CotC] CFJ 3336 assigned to scshunt
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > = Criminal Case 3336 = > > Murphy has failed to resolve Proposals 7437-7452 (two > distributions' worth) in a timely fashion after the end of their > voting periods > > The only notable point of contention is a point submitted by G. must include "an action the Accused allegedly performed or failed to perform"[1] and questions whether or not this case can indeed validly be called a criminal case. This Court will first observe that judgment has historically been given on criminal cases including multiple actions, including failing to resolve all the proposals of a single distribution---noting that the concept of Agoran Decisions does not function on a distribution basis, but a proposal basis. Consequently, any criminal case alleging the failure to resolve two or more proposals includes two different obligations being violated. Given the numerous occasions on which these cases have been accepted, the Court finds that this is permitted so long as the text of the rules "an action ..." does not preclude consideration of multiple obligations being violated. However, it seems quite difficult to generally view an obligation as being required to perform a specific action. An obligation to perform an action may sometimes be an obligation to perform any one of a number of actions. An excellent example is the requirement that the Ambassador-At-Large inform a foreign nomic of a recognition change,[2] which could be fulfilled through a variety of actions. As such, since obligations generally may encompass families of actions, the strictest interpretation of "action" in Rule 1504 leads to a rule that is hamstrung from the get-go, and would generally lead to the rules being inconsistent in their treatment of failure to perform actions. However, this still does not get us far enough to resolve this case. Each obligation to resolve an Agoran Decision defines a family of actions, and it could be interpreted that a criminal case may specify only one obligation family as having been failed to perform. Here, however, the Court has identified an inconsistency, however minor, in Rule 1504, and thus is granted full leeway to consider other aspects, in particular game custom.[3] Game custom has been that multiple obligations may be encompassed in a single criminal case, and moreover this is good for the game as it prevents a barrage of criminal cases for what are in fact, if not in law, fundamentally the same inaction. The manner of grouping the actions is best left to the callers of criminal cases, while the corresponding effect on judgments, in particular the question of what makes acts substantially similar and the effects on sentencing, are best left to a future judge for when they are not hypothetical situations. Accordingly, this Court finds quite plainly that the Accused is GUILTY of the charge, the evidence being quite clear to this Court. This Court is reluctant to find that the Assessor's increasingly often failure to resolve proposals in time is of small consequence. The legislative system is the lifeblood of Agora, and if the system grinds to a halt, then Agora quickly finds itself running into a slump as the rules are not as dynamics as they need to be during active periods. This rules out APOLOGY and FINE. On the other extreme, this breach is not of the highest severity, as the damage is far from permanent and the resolution easily performed by the deputy, ruling out EXILE. The Court is not aware of any extraordinary circumstances indicating that punishment would be unjust, and thus the Court cannot sentence DISCHARGE. The remaining sentences are COMMUNITY SERVICE and TIME OUT. TIME OUT is, by what appears to be an omission, never appropriate, while the text regarding COMMUNITY SERVICE implies that it should only be imposed if it is the last option. This Court believes that TIME OUT not being an appropriate judgment is largely an omission, and that the sentence likely ought to be appropriate for breaches of moderate severity, which this appears to be. Moreover, a judgment of TIME OUT would have the desirable side effect of making the offices of Assessor and Clerk of the Courts become Assumed, allowing for others to assume them and perform their important duties without having to resort to the slow process of deputization. Given the repetitive nature of the ninny's behaviour, this seems to this Court to be, notwithstanding its inappropriateness, the ideal sentence. Given the effects that this sentence would have, and the fact that it is relatively untested, this Court will exercise caution in imposing the minimum time out. Accordingly, having carefully weighed and understood the full implications of this action, the Court sentences Murphy to a TIME OUT of 7 days. This Court intends, with two Support, to make this case
BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Humiliating Public Reminder
I vote for Walker.
Re: BUS: Herald Oops
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Sean Hunt > wrote: >> I intend, without objection, to award Murphy the Patent Title of >> "Indispensable Do-Nothing" I object. > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Sean Hunt > wrote: >> After something was pointed out to me on ##nomic, I intend, without >> objection, to award scshunt the Patent Title of "Head of the Agoran >> Ceremonial Mint". I support. >> I intend, without objection, to award scshunt the Patent Title of "Chief >> Yoyo" I support.
Re: BUS: Herald Oops
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Sean Hunt wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Sean Hunt
>> wrote:
>> > I intend, without objection, to award Murphy the Patent Title of
>> > "Indispensable Do-Nothing"
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Sean Hunt
>> wrote:
>> > After something was pointed out to me on ##nomic, I intend, without
>> > objection, to award scshunt the Patent Title of "Head of the Agoran
>> > Ceremonial Mint".
>> >
>> > I intend, without objection, to award scshunt the Patent Title of "Chief
>> > Yoyo"
>>
>> Apparently I can't read rules today. I withdraw the above intents and
>> for each of them, intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award the
>> specified Patent Title to the specified player.
>
> I Object to both of these - seems like overly ephemeral clutter. -G.
I CFJ {In the quoted text, G. objected to a dependent action.}
Arguments:
"Both" is unclear here. It could be referring to the last two patent
titles listed, or the first two.
Also, G., a) the middle one was adopted by proposal that failed only
due to insufficient power, and do you think that "The Herald CAN award
a specified Patent Title not already defined by any Rule or held by
any entity to a specified player With 2 Agoran Consent." is intended
for something other than overly ephemeral clutter?
Sean
BUS: Election!
I initiate an election for Sensei, nominating Machiavelli and Walker. -scshunt
