Re: BUS: I register
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 3:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I, R. Lee, do register > Welcome back! I cause R. Lee to receive a Welcome Package. -Aris
BUS: I register
I, R. Lee, do register -- >From R. Lee
BUS: [Proposal] Deputisation timeliness
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Deputisation timeliness
AI: 3
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors: Alexis
{
Amend Rule 2160 to read, in whole:
{
A player acting as emself (the deputy) CAN perform an action ordinarily
reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office if
1. the player does not hold that office;
2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than
by deputisation, if e held the office;
3. either (i) there exists an obligation on the holder of that office,
by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action, or (ii) the
office is vacant;
4. either (i) a time limit applicable to that obligation has been
violated, and the end of that time limit was fewer than 90 days ago, or
(ii) the office is vacant;
5. if the office is not interim, the deputy announced between two and
fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for
the purposes of the particular action; and
6. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing so
by deputisation or by temporary deputisation.
When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder of
that office, unless the action being performed would already install
someone into that office, and/or unless the deputisation is temporary.
}
[
Added a prohibition on someone for deputising for an office that e
already holds (this was something I thought of, but then I realized it
violate all of the exacerbating factors in R2557.
Rephrased the time limit checks based on Alexis's suggested wording,
also adding a 90-day statute of limitations.
Removed the requirement for prior announcement for most deputisations,
only kept it for non-interim holders (also per Alexis's suggestion).
]
}
--
Jason Cobb
BUS: Notice of Honor
Notice of Honor -1 nch (decay, being a de facto fugitive with positive honor) +1 Warrigal (doing fun stuff with contracts) -Aris
Re: BUS: CFJ 3792 followup
G. wrote: > Since that judge was me, a comment. There are actually two questions. > (1) Was is a report satisfying the requirement to publish all > information once per week, and (2) what was the actual, effective date > of the report (the backdate listed, or the datestamp on the message?) > From what I said last time, my judgement would be that (1) is fairly > trivial - it is a report, because regardless of how we treat the date > stamp, it's either (a) correct, or (b) a fairly trivial error well > within the sorts of error we accept in a report. So you might want to > ask question (2) which is the real meat of the matter - I won't ask it > in case you still want me to judge them both. Ah, OK, I'm clearly still misunderstanding something important about this. CFJ, barring Alexis: "If the report referenced by my previous CFJ were to ratify, its 'specified time' for the purposes of Rule 1551 would be 00:00 UTC on 2020-01-20". (if this is wrong, lmk and I'll retract and resubmit) Finally, of course, if you're particularly unwilling to judge it then feel free to ignore the "request" - was just under the impression that you were the authority on this stuff atm. > Also, I CoE the blot listings in the below-indicated report: it is > missing at least 1 person with a blot. (how to resolve the CoE relies > on the answer to question 2). I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ I just called. (R2201 doesn't require me to select the _correct_ response, and this is far more convenient because it means the backdated report will never ratify by accident.) -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [attn: ADoP] Whither the Agoran economy?
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:44 AM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > > G. wrote: > > No deputisation needed if there's only 1 candidate, R2154: > > > > > If at any point an uncontested election has a single candidate, > > > then any player CAN by announcement declare em the winner of the > > > election, thereby causing em to win the election. > > You're correct, but doing it that way wouldn't discharge Murphy's > obligation to resolve it (leaving em REQUIRED to do something that's no > longer POSSIBLE), which seems a little unfair. Also, more to the point, > it wouldn't get me any cyan glitter. :P Which REQUIREMENT are you talking about? It's pretty clear to me that the clauses (1) and (2) in R2154 are written to absolve the ADoP from the duty if it's no longer POSSIBLE (but if my reading is wrong and it's broken, pls. explain as it should be fixed). -G.
Re: BUS: CFJ 3792 followup
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:11 AM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > CFJ, barring Alexis: "I published a Referee report today." > > This CFJ is extremely similar to CFJ 3792, except without the > technicality that caused it to be judged FALSE. I request it be assigned > to the same judge. Since that judge was me, a comment. There are actually two questions. (1) Was is a report satisfying the requirement to publish all information once per week, and (2) what was the actual, effective date of the report (the backdate listed, or the datestamp on the message?) >From what I said last time, my judgement would be that (1) is fairly trivial - it is a report, because regardless of how we treat the date stamp, it's either (a) correct, or (b) a fairly trivial error well within the sorts of error we accept in a report. So you might want to ask question (2) which is the real meat of the matter - I won't ask it in case you still want me to judge them both. Also, I CoE the blot listings in the below-indicated report: it is missing at least 1 person with a blot. (how to resolve the CoE relies on the answer to question 2). > > The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) > > > This report: > Published: 2020-01-24 > Accurate as of: 2020-01-20 00:00
BUS: Income
I earn 5 coins for publishing this week's Referee report. Whichever one it actually was... -twg
Re: BUS: CFJ 3792 followup
I wrote to BUS at 16:44 UTC on 2020-01-24: > I impose Summary Judgement by levying a fine of 1 blot on myself (twg). > The specific reason for this fine is that it is setting up the > conditions for a CFJ. I wrote to OFF at 17:05 UTC on 2020-01-24: > > The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) > > > This report: > Published: 2020-01-24 > Accurate as of: 2020-01-20 00:00 > > Last report: > Published: 2020-01-14 > Accurate as of: (publication) > > (all times UTC) > > > BLOT HOLDINGS(self-ratifies) > > > BlotsPlayer > --- > 2 nch > > No fugitives exist. CFJ, barring Alexis: "I published a Referee report today." This CFJ is extremely similar to CFJ 3792, except without the technicality that caused it to be judged FALSE. I request it be assigned to the same judge. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: Re: [Herald] Hear, hear!
G. wrote: > Having sufficient consent, I award twg the patent title Orator. Thank you. I'm honoured. Violet Glitter: I earn 9 coins. -twg
BUS: CFJ 3792 followup
I impose Summary Judgement by levying a fine of 1 blot on myself (twg). The specific reason for this fine is that it is setting up the conditions for a CFJ. -twg
BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 6:46 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > Date of Last Report: 19 Jan 2020 > Date of This Report: 24 Jan 2020 I earn 5 coins for the most recent Herald's weekly report.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 7:23 PM Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > 8287 twg 2.0 Blot Stabilisation FOR > 8288 omd 1.0 Glitteral FOR > 8289 Alexis 1.0 You're Banned from the Theater PRESENT > 8290 G. 3.0 More Headroom FOR > 8291 Bernie, [1] 3.0 Interesting Chambers v3.1 PRESENT (incidentally, "effects" should probably be "affects") > 8292 Bernie, twg 3.0 Self-Ratification Simplification Act FOR > 8293 Bernie, twg 1.0 CFJ Bait AGAINST > 8294 Bernie, twg 3.0 Authorial Intent AGAINST > 8295 Bernie, twg, Alexis 3.0 Rewards Reform Act AGAINST because the new text for R2496 is missing a "by announcement". Otherwise I'd be FOR. > 8296 Aris, G. 1.0 Divergence FOR, although it seems like two unrelated proposals in one > 8297 Aris 2.1 Imminent Failure FOR > 8298 Aris, [2]2.0 Administrative Adjudication v3 AGAINST, way too scammable > 8299 Aris, G. 3.0 The Reset Button v2 PRESENT > 8300 Aris 3.0 Patches AGAINST, if only because "once it has been rendered obsolete" is vague for a CAN condition > 8301 Aris, Jason Cobb 3.0 Consolidated Regulatory Recordkeeping v2 Endorse the Rulekeepor. > 8302 Aris 1.5 Generic Petitions PRESENT > 8303 Aris, [3]3.0 Contract Patency v3 PRESENT > 8304 Bernie, twg, Jason Cobb 3.0 Rewards Reform Act - v1.1 Patch AGAINST; making "officially timely fashion" mean something different from "timely fashion" is confusing. > 8305 Alexis 3.0 Keeping Up With the Times FOR > 8306 Gaelan 3.0 Deregistration Endorse D. Margaux. > 8307 D. Margaux 3.0 Deregistration Endorse Gaelan.
