Re: BUS: Fwd: Resolving Prime Minister election
Falsifian wrote: CoE: this disregards voting strength for instant runoff, as specified in Rule 955. So it does! Okay, working that out: * Default 3 (Rule 2422) * -1 per 3 blots (Rule 2556) - -2 for Corona (8 blots) - -2 for twg (7 blots) * Rules 2537 and 2540 are still suspended * Rule 2481 is n/a as we're not Festive * This is an election for Prime Minister, so: - +1 for Speaker D. Margaux (Rule 103) - No bonus for Prime Minister (Rule 2423) omd's list may also be invalid due to "balloons" not being a single entity, unless one allows it as a gloss for "a group of balloons". Rule 955 says to count a strength N vote of _ like N distinct votes of _. So that's 19 for G., either 12 or 15 for Aris, and 0 for Corona. If I haven't already, I resolve the Prime Minister election with G. as the winner. According to my records, votes were: ATMunn G., Aris, Corona twg Corona Corona Corona Falsifian G., Aris Aris Aris, G. L endorse D. Margaux D. Margaux if G. has awarded D. Margaux a Gray Ribbon (e did) then G. else Aris, Corona G. G., Corona Telnaior G., Aris o Aris, G., Corona omd Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, balloons Baron von V. Aris, G. Rance Aris, G. In summary: * G. as first choice - 6 players (ATMunn, Falsifian, L, D. Margaux, G., Telnaior) * Corona as first choice - 2 players (twg, Corona) * Aris as first choice - 5 players (Aris, o, omd, Baron von V., Rance) No majority, so discard Corona, and now G. wins with a 6-5 majority.
BUS: Fwd: CFJ on implicit voting
This time with "BUS:" pre-added. If I haven't already submitted a CFJ with the statement quoted below, then I do so now. Forwarded Message Subject: CFJ on implicit voting Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 20:35:43 -0700 From: Edward Murphy To: Agora Business CFJ: A player who quotes the number and title of a proposal followed by "FOR" thereby votes FOR that proposal, provided that e is otherwise able to do so. (This was apparently claimed to be false a week or two back, with a comment along the lines of "these resemble votes but are not in fact votes". I had long assumed that the implicit "I vote as follows" was backed by strength of custom, similar to "TTttPF".)
BUS: Fwd: Speaking of ribbons...
If I haven't already awarded a ribbon as quoted below, then I do so. Forwarded Message Subject: Speaking of ribbons... Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 20:37:01 -0700 From: Edward Murphy To: Agora Business If possible, I award a Cyan ribbon to R. Lee for deputising for ADoP.
BUS: Weekly-ish maintenance
I earn 5 coins for publishing the ADoP report. I expunge one of my blots (if any, and if possible).
Re: BUS: Fwd: Resolving Prime Minister election
CoE: omd's ballot is not valid, as it is not an "ordered [list] of entities", as specified by Rule 2528, because "balloons" is not an entity. Jason Cobb On 7/1/19 11:31 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: Re-sending this as DKIM issues will probably screw up the first attempt. Forwarded Message Subject: Resolving Prime Minister election Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 20:30:52 -0700 From: Edward Murphy To: Agora Business [Disclaimer: I didn't catch what's currently going on with IRV, other than "what if your list contains a non-candidate", so it's possible that something about this is broken. But proceeding anyway in case it's okay after all.] According to my records, votes were: ATMunn G., Aris, Corona twg Corona Corona Corona Falsifian G., Aris Aris Aris, G. L endorse D. Margaux D. Margaux if G. has awarded D. Margaux a Gray Ribbon (e did) then G. else Aris, Corona G. G., Corona Telnaior G., Aris o Aris, G., Corona omd Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, balloons Baron von V. Aris, G. Rance Aris, G. In summary: * G. as first choice - 6 players (ATMunn, Falsifian, L, D. Margaux, G., Telnaior) * Corona as first choice - 2 players (twg, Corona) * Aris as first choice - 5 players (Aris, o, omd, Baron von V., Rance) No majority, so discard Corona, and now G. wins with a 6-5 majority.
BUS: Speaking of ribbons...
If possible, I award a Cyan ribbon to R. Lee for deputising for ADoP.
BUS: CFJ on implicit voting
CFJ: A player who quotes the number and title of a proposal followed by "FOR" thereby votes FOR that proposal, provided that e is otherwise able to do so. (This was apparently claimed to be false a week or two back, with a comment along the lines of "these resemble votes but are not in fact votes". I had long assumed that the implicit "I vote as follows" was backed by strength of custom, similar to "TTttPF".)
Re: BUS: Fwd: Resolving Prime Minister election
CoE: this disregards voting strength for instant runoff, as specified in Rule 955. There's nothing that actually breaks instant runoff in this instance. The issue is that (in my view) the set of ballots that are accepted is too large, rather than too small (lists of all entities, rather than just candidates). There's also the issue that instant runoff decisions only work with entities and not abstract options, but that doesn't apply here. Jason Cobb On 7/1/19 11:31 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: Re-sending this as DKIM issues will probably screw up the first attempt. Forwarded Message Subject: Resolving Prime Minister election Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 20:30:52 -0700 From: Edward Murphy To: Agora Business [Disclaimer: I didn't catch what's currently going on with IRV, other than "what if your list contains a non-candidate", so it's possible that something about this is broken. But proceeding anyway in case it's okay after all.] According to my records, votes were: ATMunn G., Aris, Corona twg Corona Corona Corona Falsifian G., Aris Aris Aris, G. L endorse D. Margaux D. Margaux if G. has awarded D. Margaux a Gray Ribbon (e did) then G. else Aris, Corona G. G., Corona Telnaior G., Aris o Aris, G., Corona omd Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, balloons Baron von V. Aris, G. Rance Aris, G. In summary: * G. as first choice - 6 players (ATMunn, Falsifian, L, D. Margaux, G., Telnaior) * Corona as first choice - 2 players (twg, Corona) * Aris as first choice - 5 players (Aris, o, omd, Baron von V., Rance) No majority, so discard Corona, and now G. wins with a 6-5 majority.
BUS: Fwd: Resolving Prime Minister election
Re-sending this as DKIM issues will probably screw up the first attempt. Forwarded Message Subject: Resolving Prime Minister election Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 20:30:52 -0700 From: Edward Murphy To: Agora Business [Disclaimer: I didn't catch what's currently going on with IRV, other than "what if your list contains a non-candidate", so it's possible that something about this is broken. But proceeding anyway in case it's okay after all.] According to my records, votes were: ATMunn G., Aris, Corona twg Corona Corona Corona Falsifian G., Aris ArisAris, G. L endorse D. Margaux D. Margaux if G. has awarded D. Margaux a Gray Ribbon (e did) then G. else Aris, Corona G. G., Corona TelnaiorG., Aris o Aris, G., Corona omd Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, balloons Baron von V.Aris, G. Rance Aris, G. In summary: * G. as first choice - 6 players (ATMunn, Falsifian, L, D. Margaux, G., Telnaior) * Corona as first choice - 2 players (twg, Corona) * Aris as first choice - 5 players (Aris, o, omd, Baron von V., Rance) No majority, so discard Corona, and now G. wins with a 6-5 majority.
BUS: Resolving Prime Minister election
[Disclaimer: I didn't catch what's currently going on with IRV, other than "what if your list contains a non-candidate", so it's possible that something about this is broken. But proceeding anyway in case it's okay after all.] According to my records, votes were: ATMunn G., Aris, Corona twg Corona Corona Corona Falsifian G., Aris ArisAris, G. L endorse D. Margaux D. Margaux if G. has awarded D. Margaux a Gray Ribbon (e did) then G. else Aris, Corona G. G., Corona TelnaiorG., Aris o Aris, G., Corona omd Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, Aris, balloons Baron von V.Aris, G. Rance Aris, G. In summary: * G. as first choice - 6 players (ATMunn, Falsifian, L, D. Margaux, G., Telnaior) * Corona as first choice - 2 players (twg, Corona) * Aris as first choice - 5 players (Aris, o, omd, Baron von V., Rance) No majority, so discard Corona, and now G. wins with a 6-5 majority.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
Eh, I thought 8197 was taking advantage of a neat little bug. I'd also kind of like to see how R106 is interpreted with a non-numeric adoption index, and this might be the one opportunity (although there might be precedent that I don't know about). I wasn't aware of the history, though (and I see that G. already got a win from ribbons), so I change my vote to AGAINST. Jason Cobb On 7/1/19 10:44 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I vote as follows: IDAuthor(s) AITitle --- 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2) PRESENT 8197 G. none no power is all powerful AGAINST. I want to note that I consider anyone who votes FOR this without some sort of significant bribe, blackmail, or manipulation thoroughly boring. We shouldn't just hand out wins to whoever asks for one infinite power without making them do some work for it. It's just not fun. This happens all the time, and so many people have gotten easy wins by proposal it's just silly. 8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon! FOR 8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff FOR 8200 Aris, G. 3.0 Sane AI Defaulting FOR 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out FOR -Aris
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
Falsifian wrote: CoE: Rance is the Herald. E published a Herald's report by deputisation on June 4. Admitted, database corrected. This appears to have been some combination of (a) my address getting cut off due to intermittent bounces and (b) my failing to receive some/all messages sent by Rance specifically (who, due to using a Yahoo address, might be running into the same type of DKIM issues that I've been facing for a while). I'm still catching up on the past week-and-change of e-mails, I suspect I may have been deputised out of office by this point but I'll still finish just in case.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Changed my mind
Well it's not a resolution that is CoE'able but you are both correct. In that case I resign the position of ADoP and do not consent to be installed as ADoP On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:01 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I CoE the purported resolution both on Jason Cobb's logic in the email > this one replies to and the following basis: > > Withdrawing doesn't make you not a candidate. It just means you no > longer consent to be installed into the office, and thus cannot be > installed even if you later win. > > -Aris > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:56 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > > Rule 2154: > > > > > An election is contested if it has two or more candidates at the > > > end of the nomination period, and uncontested otherwise. For a > > > contested election, nominations close at the end of the poll's > > > voting period. For an uncontested election, nominations close at > > > the end of the nomination period. > > > > The election had 2 candidates at the end of the nomination period, so it > > was not, by Rule 2154, uncontested. Therefore this maybe did not work. > > > > > > Jason Cobb > > > > On 7/1/19 10:53 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > > I withdraw from candidacy for the ADoP election. > > > > > > This election being uncontested, I declare that Murphy is the winner of > > > this ADoP election. E is installed as ADoP > > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Changed my mind
I CoE the purported resolution both on Jason Cobb's logic in the email this one replies to and the following basis: Withdrawing doesn't make you not a candidate. It just means you no longer consent to be installed into the office, and thus cannot be installed even if you later win. -Aris On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 7:56 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > Rule 2154: > > > An election is contested if it has two or more candidates at the > > end of the nomination period, and uncontested otherwise. For a > > contested election, nominations close at the end of the poll's > > voting period. For an uncontested election, nominations close at > > the end of the nomination period. > > The election had 2 candidates at the end of the nomination period, so it > was not, by Rule 2154, uncontested. Therefore this maybe did not work. > > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/1/19 10:53 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > I withdraw from candidacy for the ADoP election. > > > > This election being uncontested, I declare that Murphy is the winner of > > this ADoP election. E is installed as ADoP > >
BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Changed my mind
Rule 2154: An election is contested if it has two or more candidates at the end of the nomination period, and uncontested otherwise. For a contested election, nominations close at the end of the poll's voting period. For an uncontested election, nominations close at the end of the nomination period. The election had 2 candidates at the end of the nomination period, so it was not, by Rule 2154, uncontested. Therefore this maybe did not work. Jason Cobb On 7/1/19 10:53 PM, Rebecca wrote: I withdraw from candidacy for the ADoP election. This election being uncontested, I declare that Murphy is the winner of this ADoP election. E is installed as ADoP
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
I vote as follows: > > > > IDAuthor(s) AITitle > > --- > > 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2) PRESENT > > 8197 G. none no power is all powerful AGAINST. I want to note that I consider anyone who votes FOR this without some sort of significant bribe, blackmail, or manipulation thoroughly boring. We shouldn't just hand out wins to whoever asks for one infinite power without making them do some work for it. It's just not fun. This happens all the time, and so many people have gotten easy wins by proposal it's just silly. > > 8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon! FOR > > 8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff FOR > > 8200 Aris, G. 3.0 Sane AI Defaulting FOR > > 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out FOR -Aris
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
I vote as follows: 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2) PRESENT 8197 G. none no power is all powerful AGAINST 8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon! FOR 8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff AGAINST (if something at the bottom of the list is invalid, should that negate the entire list, or just be thrown out as not-a-candidate iff it reaches the top?) 8200 Aris, G. 3.0 Sane AI Defaulting PRESENT 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out PRESENT
BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
PF.
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 10:09 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Claim of error: I submitted the proposal "Regulated actions reform
(v2)" here [0].
[0]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040719.html
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 9:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).
ID Author(s) AI Title
---
8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2)
8197 G. none no power is all powerful
8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon!
8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff
8200 Aris, G. 3.0 Sane AI Defaulting
8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out
The proposal pool is currently empty.
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//
ID: 8196
Title: Perfecting pledges (v1.2)
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors: Falsifian
[Comment: This clarifies the wording to explicitly use both the time
window and penalty specified in the Oath. This also specifies that
pledges can only be violated once.]
Amend the first paragraph of Rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read:
If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
Oathbreaking. If the pledge specifically states that the pledge is
under penalty of a Class A crime, where A is an integer not less
than 1, then N is A; otherwise, N is 2. If the pledge specifically
states that it operates only for a certain time window, and if that
time window is prospective and not retrospective, then it operates
only for that time window; otherwise, the pledge operates for 60
days. It is impossible to commit the crime of Oathbreaking multiple
times for a single pledge; breaking a single pledge multiple times
constitutes a single crime.
//
ID: 8197
Title: no power is all powerful
Adoption index: none
Author: G.
Co-authors:
Create the following Rule, "Supreme Power", Power=4:
G. CAN make arbitrary changes to the gamestate by announcement.
//
ID: 8198
Title: Be gone, foul demon!
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Repeal Rule 2596 ("The Ritual").
//
ID: 8199
Title: Fixing instant runoff
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend item 3 of the only list of Rule 2528 ("Voting Methods") to read:
3. For an instant runoff decision, non-empty ordered lists for which
each element is a valid option.
//
ID: 8200
Title: Sane AI Defaulting
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G.
Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing:
Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
decisions and proposals, whose value is either "none" (default) or
an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
with:
Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
decisions and proposals. For decisions, the possible values are
"none" (default) or integral multiples of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
For proposals, the possible values are integral multiples of 0.1
from 1.0 to 9.9 (default 1.0).
//
ID: 8201
Title: Just Make Them Write It Out
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors:
[It's terribly confusing for everyone to leave out a proposal title.
Leaving
out AI only works if it's 1.0 anyway, and confuses me every time I
see it.
I usually spend like a solid minute checking that I haven't missed
something
as Promotor and that the proposal is effective at that power as a
player.
Just making these fields mandatory would save everyone so much
trouble and
be only marginally more work for authors.]
Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by changing the first paragraph, including
the following list, to read in full:
A proposal is an entity consisting of a body of text and
other attributes. A player CAN create a proposal by announcement,
specifying its text, an associated title, and a valid adoption
index, and
optionally specifying a list of co-authors (who must be persons other
than the author).
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
I vote as follows: IDAuthor(s) AITitle --- 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2) FOR 8197 G. none no power is all powerful FOR [this should be fun...] 8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon! FOR 8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff FOR 8200 Aris, G. 3.0 Sane AI Defaulting FOR 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out FOR
BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
TTttPF again oops
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:03 PM Rebecca wrote:
> ttpf
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:03 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
>> Reminder that I am still pledged to vote AGAINST anything that adds words
>> to the rules
>>
>> I vote as follows. I also act on Tarhalindur's behalf to vote as follows.
>>
>> 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2)
>> AGAINST
>> 8197 G. none no power is all powerful
>> AGAINST
>> 8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon!
>> AGAINST, the ritual is fun.
>> 8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff
>> With regret, AGAINST due to my pledge
>> 8200 Aris, G. 3.0 Sane AI Defaulting
>> With regret, AGAINST due to my pledge
>> 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out
>> FOR
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:56 AM Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
>> > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
>> > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
>> > quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
>> > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
>> > conditional votes).
>> >
>> > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
>> >
>> ---
>> > 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2)
>> > 8197 G. none no power is all powerful
>> > 8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon!
>> > 8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff
>> > 8200 Aris, G. 3.0 Sane AI Defaulting
>> > 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out
>> >
>> >
>> > The proposal pool is currently empty.
>> >
>> > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
>> >
>> > //
>> > ID: 8196
>> > Title: Perfecting pledges (v1.2)
>> > Adoption index: 1.7
>> > Author: Jason Cobb
>> > Co-authors: Falsifian
>> >
>> >
>> > [Comment: This clarifies the wording to explicitly use both the time
>> > window and penalty specified in the Oath. This also specifies that
>> > pledges can only be violated once.]
>> >
>> > Amend the first paragraph of Rule 2450 ("Pledges") to read:
>> >
>> > If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
>> > refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
>> > within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
>> > Oathbreaking. If the pledge specifically states that the pledge is
>> > under penalty of a Class A crime, where A is an integer not less
>> > than 1, then N is A; otherwise, N is 2. If the pledge specifically
>> > states that it operates only for a certain time window, and if that
>> > time window is prospective and not retrospective, then it operates
>> > only for that time window; otherwise, the pledge operates for 60
>> > days. It is impossible to commit the crime of Oathbreaking multiple
>> > times for a single pledge; breaking a single pledge multiple times
>> > constitutes a single crime.
>> >
>> > //
>> > ID: 8197
>> > Title: no power is all powerful
>> > Adoption index: none
>> > Author: G.
>> > Co-authors:
>> >
>> >
>> > Create the following Rule, "Supreme Power", Power=4:
>> >
>> > G. CAN make arbitrary changes to the gamestate by announcement.
>> >
>> > //
>> > ID: 8198
>> > Title: Be gone, foul demon!
>> > Adoption index: 1.0
>> > Author: Jason Cobb
>> > Co-authors:
>> >
>> >
>> > Repeal Rule 2596 ("The Ritual").
>> >
>> > //
>> > ID: 8199
>> > Title: Fixing instant runoff
>> > Adoption index: 3.0
>> > Author: Jason Cobb
>> > Co-authors:
>> >
>> >
>> > Amend item 3 of the only list of Rule 2528 ("Voting Methods") to read:
>> >
>> > 3. For an instant runoff decision, non-empty ordered lists for which
>> > each element is a valid option.
>> >
>> > //
>> > ID: 8200
>> > Title: Sane AI Defaulting
>> > Adoption index: 3.0
>> > Author: Aris
>> > Co-authors: G.
>> >
>> >
>> > Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing:
>> > Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
>> > decisions and proposals, whose value is either "none" (default) or
>> > an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
>> > with:
>> > Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
>> > decisions and proposals. For decisions, the possible values are
>> > "none" (default) or integral multiples of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
>> > For proposals, the possible values are integral multiples
BUS: [Proposal] Just Make Them Write It Out
I submit the following proposal. -Aris --- Title: Just Make Them Write It Out Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: [It's terribly confusing for everyone to leave out a proposal title. Leaving out AI only works if it's 1.0 anyway, and confuses me every time I see it. I usually spend like a solid minute checking that I haven't missed something as Promotor and that the proposal is effective at that power as a player. Just making these fields mandatory would save everyone so much trouble and be only marginally more work for authors.] Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by changing the first paragraph, including the following list, to read in full: A proposal is an entity consisting of a body of text and other attributes. A player CAN create a proposal by announcement, specifying its text, an associated title, and a valid adoption index, and optionally specifying a list of co-authors (who must be persons other than the author).
BUS: Re: DIS: AI fix proto
Since no one else seems to be submitting this, and it seems generally sensible regardless of what else happens, I submit the following proposal. -Aris --- Title: Sane AI Defaulting Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: G. Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing: Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran decisions and proposals, whose value is either "none" (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. with: Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran decisions and proposals. For decisions, the possible values are "none" (default) or integral multiples of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. For proposals, the possible values are integral multiples of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9 (default 1.0). --- On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:56 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > Switches need to specify a default value or they have a default value > of "null", which has the same problem. > > -Aris > > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:27 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > > You could just state that > > > > > "none" is not a valid value for the adoption index of proposals. > > > > Jason Cobb > > > > On 6/23/19 6:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > Does this do the trick - > > > > > > Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing: > > > Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran > > > decisions and proposals, whose value is either "none" (default) or > > > an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. > > > with: > > > Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran > > > decisions and proposals. For decisions, the possible values are > > > "none" (default) or integral multiples of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. > > > For proposals, the possible values are integral multiples of 0.1 > > > from 1.0 to 9.9 (default 1.0). > > > > > >
Re: BUS: Proposal AI Fix
Alright, this seems to have some issues, so I withdraw this proposal
("Proposal AI fix").
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 2:30 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Proposal AI fix
Author: Jason Cobb
AI: 3
Text:
{
[Comment: restrict proposal AIs to valid adoption indices. Explicitly
provide the default for proposals, rather than Agoran Decisions as a
whole - this means that a proposal, once created, always has a valid
(numeric) adoption index.]
Amend Rule 2350 ("Proposals") by adding the following paragraph after
the paragraph beginning "Creating a proposal":
The above notwithstanding, if a player makes an announcement that e
is creating a proposal with an adoption index of "none" or an
invalid adoption index, the attempt to create the proposal is
INEFFECTIVE. If a proposal is created by an announcement that does
not specify an adoption index, the adoption index of the proposal is
1.0.
}
BUS: Proposal AI Fix
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Proposal AI fix
Author: Jason Cobb
AI: 3
Text:
{
[Comment: restrict proposal AIs to valid adoption indices. Explicitly
provide the default for proposals, rather than Agoran Decisions as a
whole - this means that a proposal, once created, always has a valid
(numeric) adoption index.]
Amend Rule 2350 ("Proposals") by adding the following paragraph after
the paragraph beginning "Creating a proposal":
The above notwithstanding, if a player makes an announcement that e
is creating a proposal with an adoption index of "none" or an
invalid adoption index, the attempt to create the proposal is
INEFFECTIVE. If a proposal is created by an announcement that does
not specify an adoption index, the adoption index of the proposal is
1.0.
}
--
Jason Cobb
BUS: a cheap title
I award myself the Patent Title "nouveau riche" by paying a fee of 1 Coin for this sole purpose. [To avoid any sort of no faking, I don't expect that the award worked]. I CFJ: In this message, G. destroyed a coin. Arguments The award in question is not a fee-based action at all. R2579 specifies that if a *correct* fee-announcement is (but e.g. the actor does not have the fee) then no asset holdings are changed. In the case of an "incorrect" fee-announcement, there's no fail-safe that I can find one way or the other - do the assets change?
BUS: Kwang
I earn 10 coins total (5 for each of my two most recent CFJs)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3744 Assigned to D. Margaux
I agree with this analysis. I self move to reconsider 3745, and judge it FALSE for the reasons given by g. > On Jul 1, 2019, at 12:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The Proposal Distribution (not the Proposal) was CoE'd on the AI (the > Distribution listed the AI as 0.5, which is wrong regardless). Since AI is > an essential parameter, that means the attempt to distribute the proposal > and create a decision failed, by R107. (using R107 language, the CoE > "correctly identified the lack" of a valid AI). > > Therefore the decision was never initiated - it was invalid. (This > all happened before the CFJs were called).
