Re: DIS: Important note to Assessor and Promotor

[Alexis Hunt]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 01:24 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >
> > 7922*  Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act  Alexis  1 AP
> >
>
> H. Assessor, H. Promotor:
>
> Proposal 7922 tinkers with the definition of ballots and votes.  It would
> be
> *really nice* if all other proposals in this batch were resolved first, and
> no other distribution started, when this one is resolved.  You know, just
> in
> case?
>

+1

DIS: Important note to Assessor and Promotor

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> 7922*  Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act  Alexis  1 AP
>

H. Assessor, H. Promotor:

Proposal 7922 tinkers with the definition of ballots and votes.  It would be
*really nice* if all other proposals in this batch were resolved first, and
no other distribution started, when this one is resolved.  You know, just in 
case?

DIS: Revised High-Power Cleanup

[Alexis Hunt]

Revised based on feedback.

Proposal: High Power Cleanup (AI=3, coauthors=G, PSS)
{{{
Text in square brackets is not a substantive part of this proposal and is
ignored when it takes effect.

Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule
 is repealed, it ceases to be a rule,
its power is set to 0, and the Rulekeepor
 need no longer maintain a record
of it."

[There is a ruling that repealed rules have their power set to 0, but I'm
not sure I fully agree with that conclusion; this makes it explicit which
can't hurt anyway.]

Amend Rule 106 by appending "Except insofar as the actions performed by a
proposal happen one after another, rather than simultaneously, a proposal's
effect is instantaneous. A proposal can neither delay nor extend its own
effect. Once a propsal finishes taking effect, its power is set to 0."

[Per discussion, do the same for proposals. While here, make it clear that
proposals are instantaneous. Please nitpick this, I'm pretty sure it's safe
but this is a very dangerous rule to get wrong.]

Set the power of all entities other than Rules, Regulations, and this
Proposal to 0. If rule 2493 was repealed, or the word "instrument" does not
appear in its text, also set the power of all Regulations to 0.

[This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other entities.]

Amend Rule 105, bullet 3 by appending "Unless specified otherwise by the
re-enacting instrument, a re-enacted rule has power equal to the power it
had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if power was not defined at the
time of that rule's repeal). If the re-enacting instrument is incapable of
setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the re-enactment is
null and void."

[Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes it to
work roughly the way you would expect it to.]

Amend Rule 1023 by appending "The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to for
determining whether two points in time are within N months of each other,
for N greater than or equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth bullet
in the first list.

[This makes the logical extension to "within 6 months", which is used,
explicit.]
}}}

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: E•MO•TION

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Ah, forgot that cleanup time could do that. I intend without objection 
to cause Cleanup Time to amend the ruleset by replacing “registrar” in 
any places it appears with “Registrar”.


Does this require specifying an order? There might be just one such Rule 
anyhow, but if not?


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: CFJ on another Campaigning mess (Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921)

[Ørjan Johansen]

I make two CFJ, and request that they be linked:

  There exists a Rule entitled "Campaign Proposals, with power 3",
  with power 1.

and

  The ADOP SHALL NOT distribute Campaign Proposals for ongoing
  elections.

My argument for the first one is that proposal 7912 contains an obvious 
typo:



Enact a new rule entitled (Campaign Proposals, with power 3), reading as
follows:


My argument for the second one (which I thought of first) applies only if 
the first one is FALSE.


In that case, the new rule entitled "Campaign Proposals" and having power 
) states (possibly due to a missing "except"):



 A Campaign Proposal is an Official Proposal exempt from automatic
 distribution, and SHALL NOT be distributed as required by the rules.
 The election with which a Campaign Proposal is associated, as well as its
 Commitment, are essential parameters for an Agoran decision to adopt a
 Campaign Proposal.


That's a pretty strong prohibition, which seems to have no exemption for 
elections. Rule 2154 states the opposite, of course:



 When an election is initiated, it enters the nomination period,
 which lasts for 7 days. In a timely fashion after the nomination
 period ends, the ADoP CAN and SHALL, in the same message:
 1) If the election is contested, initiate an Agoran decision
to select the winner of the election (the poll). For this
decision, the Vote Collector is the Assessor, the valid
options are the candidates for that election (including
those who become candidates after its initiation), and the
voting method is instant runoff.
 2) Distribute all pending Campaign Proposals associated
with the election.
 3) If POSSIBLE per the following paragraph, end the election
immediately.


However, Rule 2154 only has power 2.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

[snip]

Enact a new rule entitled (Campaign Proposals, with power 3), reading as
follows:

 During the nomination period of an election, any candidate for that 
election

 CAN submit a Campaign Proposal for that election, provided e does not
 currently have a pending Campaign Proposal for that election, using the 
normal

 mechanism for proposal submission. Campaign Proposals SHOULD relate to the
 duties of the office up for election. Commitment is an untracked Campaign
 Proposal switch with values Committed (default) and Uncommitted. The author
 of a Committed proposal may flip it to Uncommitted by announcement.

[A Campaign Proposal is basically an extension of a candidate's platform,
allowing them to propose changes to any office that they wish to associate 
with

their election.

Commitment is basically stating whether a candidate wishes to be elected only
if their proposal passes. They can opt out of commitment, so that they can be
elected if it fails. This allows a player to encode "I will take this office
only if I can change it in this fashion." into the election system.]

 A Campaign Proposal is an Official Proposal exempt from automatic
 distribution, and SHALL NOT be distributed as required by the rules.
 The election with which a Campaign Proposal is associated, as well as its
 Commitment, are essential parameters for an Agoran decision to adopt a
 Campaign Proposal.

[The election procedure dictates when Campaign Proposals should be
distributed; they don't follow the normal distribution system. They also
have some additional essential parameters, although note that a player
can opt out of Commitment even after the proposal is distributed.]

 When a Campaign Proposal is adopted, it CANNOT take effect until
 the associated election ends. When the election ends, if the winner was the
 proposal's author, then any player CAN once make it take effect by
 announcement (with its power set as usual for an adopted proposal). If the
 conditions for a Campaign Proposal to take effect are met as a result of an
 action in a public message, the author of the message SHALL make it take
 effect in that message.

[Campaign Proposals need to meet two requirements in order to take effect:
their author must win the election and they must pass. The former is what 
ties

them to the election and allows candidates to safely submit conflicting
proposals. The latter is the safety guard (reinforced by rule 106 which
prevents non-adopted proposals from taking effect) to ensure that a
candidate can

This also means that voters can vote on the Campaign Proposals based on
whether or not they would be okay with the rule changes, knowing that
the actual choice of which one takes effect is dictated by the election
outcome.

Requiring them to take effect by announcement is a safety guard to
ensure that they don't take effect with no one noticing. In practice,
the Assessor will nearly always do this in the same message as resolving
the decision (and the poll, if applicable), however.]


[snip]


Amend rule 2154 (Election Procedure) to read as follows:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

[Alexis Hunt]

If it isn't self-ratifying, you're not obliged to deal with it, I think.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 00:09 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm probably going to deny this, as there is (I think) a custom that the
> effective date of a revision is implied to be that of the original report.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:04 PM Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
>> Oh, also, just in case, to stop self-ratification: CoE: there are more
>> proposals in the Proposal Pool than just these.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 21:10 Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>>
>>> I spend an AP to CFJ: The below-quoted document contains a
>>> self-ratifying list of proposals in the Proposal Pool. 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:

 IDAuthor(s) AI   Title

 ---
 pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
 pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
 pp3* Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act
 pp4* Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt

 Legend: * : 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 

DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification (Quasi-Resolution of PM and ADoP Elections)

[Alexis Hunt]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 00:06 VJ Rada  wrote:

> I intend to ratify the document contained in curly braces.
> {Just now, ATMunn won an election for ADoP. Just now, Alexis won an
> election for Prime Minister}.
>
> If anyone's interested, here's a vote-count.
>
> PM
> Three first preference Alexis votes, one for VJ Rada, ATMunn and PSS.
> I eliminate the vote for me which gives Alexis a majority.
> Alexis: [Alexis, Murphy, o, 天火狐, Gaelan, Aris]
> PSS: [PSS, G., and o]
> o.: Alexis, then G., then nichdel.
> G.: Alexis, then G., then nichdel.
> VJ Rada: VJ Rada
> ATMunn: ATMunn
>

I believe you missed Aris's vote here, but it does not affect the outcome.
Note that this intent is ineffective (you didn't specify the form of
dependent action) and you should probably include the disclaimer about
inaccuracy required for RWO.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

[Aris Merchant]

I'm probably going to deny this, as there is (I think) a custom that the
effective date of a revision is implied to be that of the original report.

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:04 PM Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> Oh, also, just in case, to stop self-ratification: CoE: there are more
> proposals in the Proposal Pool than just these.
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 21:10 Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
>> I spend an AP to CFJ: The below-quoted document contains a self-ratifying
>> list of proposals in the Proposal Pool. 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:
>>>
>>> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
>>>
>>> ---
>>> pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
>>> pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
>>> pp3* Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act
>>> pp4* Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt
>>>
>>> Legend: * : 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 

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:


{{{
 A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
 It is not possible to for multiple rule changes to occur
 simultaneously; any attempt to cause multiple rule changes
 without a statement of the order in which those changes should
 be made will have no effect and none of the changes will occur.
 Such a statement can be implicit in the order in which the
 changes are specified, so long as there is only one plausible
 possibility for the ordering.
}}}


"to for" (is there a minor epidemic of these?)

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7922-7929

[VJ Rada]

also, nttpf

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:41 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> "The problem here is that deregistration without objection isn’t
> cuddlebeam-proof."
>
> I think you mean everyone-proof! Omd and Murphy can't be deregistered
> rn and that's 1/10 of the whole Supply level right there.
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 15, 2017, at 8:20 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 8.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
>>> also a valid vote).
>>>
>>>
>>> ID Author(s) AI   Title Pender  Pend fee
>>> ---
>>> 7922*  Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act  Alexis  1 AP
>> FOR
>>> 7923*  Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt  Gaelan  1 AP
>> AGAINST; this needs some fixes
>>> 7924*  Aris, [1]  3.0  Contracts v8 Aris1 sh.
>> FOR
>>> 7925*  Aris, Alexis   3.0  Safety Regulations v2Aris1 AP
>> FOR
>>> 7926*  Alexis 3.0  Deregulation Alexis  1 AP
>> CONDITIONAL: if safety regulations passed (or is about to pass), then 
>> AGAINST. else, FOR. If, save for this sentence, a conditional vote on 7925 
>> would cause the result of my vote on 7926 to be circular, act as if the 
>> result of that conditional resolves to PRESENT.
>>> 7927*  V.J. Rada, G.  2.0  Estate Auction Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.
>> FOR
>>> 7928*  G. 3.0  no we can't  G.  1 AP
>> FOR
>>> 7929*  V.J. Rada  1.0  Consumerism  V.J. Rada   1 sh.
>>
>> AGAINST. The problem here is that deregistration without objection isn’t 
>> cuddlebeam-proof. We should just fix that instead.
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>>>
>>> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
>>>
>>> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
>>> ---
>>> pp1   o 2.0  Faster Auctions
>>>
>>> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
>>>
>>> [1] o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, CuddleBeam, V.J Rada, Trigon, Alexis, P.S.S.
>>>
>>> A proposal may be pended for 1 AP, or for 1/20th the Floating Value
>>> in shines (see the Secretary's report).
>>>
>>> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. Please note
>>> that, due to its length, Proposal 7924 is listed last.
>>>
>>> //
>>> ID: 7922
>>> 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 

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:

[don’t know if anybody else shares this sentiment] Please use 
mail-archive instead of the built-in mailman archive. I have to dig up 
my mailman password every time, and it’s a pain.


I do.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: election end discussion

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 20:24 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> Actually, retroactively replacing an Officeholder is ugly.  Better version:
>
> The following document is ratified:
> {
> [winner] has just now won an election for Prime Minister.
> [winner] has just now won an election for ADoP.
> }
>
>
After reviewing the votes, I think I didn't need the scam anyway. So I'll
not object to ratifying this, even if I'm wrong (that's my own fault if I
am).

-Alexis

Re: DIS: eval()

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 at 20:45 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> There are many places where Agora essentially calls eval(T), where T is
> some text from a player. This includes:
>
> The rules, of course
> Proposals
> Regulations
> Other powered instruments (do we have any of those lying around?)
> Public messages
> Orgs
> Agencies
> Contracts
> Old Pledges
> Conditional votes
> CFJs
>
> I think we need a simple way to state in the rules that agora “reads” a
> piece of text and changes the gamestate accordingly, according to some list
> of things that that text is allowed to do:
>
> * Proposals can impact things tracked by the rules
> * Public messages can perform by-annoucement actions, etc
> * Contracts can authorize player actions (contract-by-announcement) and
> punish players
> * Conditional votes can choose a vote
> * CFJs can pose a question
> * The rules (I think) actually have no power over anything beyond their
> own scope
>
> I think we might want to define something like “invoking” a piece of text,
> or giving an instrument with zero power the right to specify some limited
> things, or something.
>
> Gaelan


I'm generally wary and not sure it's needed, but am still intrigued. I
worry it will add complexity and scammability without actually helping too
much.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7922-7929

[VJ Rada]

"The problem here is that deregistration without objection isn’t
cuddlebeam-proof."

I think you mean everyone-proof! Omd and Murphy can't be deregistered
rn and that's 1/10 of the whole Supply level right there.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 15, 2017, at 8:20 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 8.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
>> also a valid vote).
>>
>>
>> ID Author(s) AI   Title Pender  Pend fee
>> ---
>> 7922*  Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act  Alexis  1 AP
> FOR
>> 7923*  Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt  Gaelan  1 AP
> AGAINST; this needs some fixes
>> 7924*  Aris, [1]  3.0  Contracts v8 Aris1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7925*  Aris, Alexis   3.0  Safety Regulations v2Aris1 AP
> FOR
>> 7926*  Alexis 3.0  Deregulation Alexis  1 AP
> CONDITIONAL: if safety regulations passed (or is about to pass), then 
> AGAINST. else, FOR. If, save for this sentence, a conditional vote on 7925 
> would cause the result of my vote on 7926 to be circular, act as if the 
> result of that conditional resolves to PRESENT.
>> 7927*  V.J. Rada, G.  2.0  Estate Auction Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.
> FOR
>> 7928*  G. 3.0  no we can't  G.  1 AP
> FOR
>> 7929*  V.J. Rada  1.0  Consumerism  V.J. Rada   1 sh.
>
> AGAINST. The problem here is that deregistration without objection isn’t 
> cuddlebeam-proof. We should just fix that instead.
>
> Gaelan
>
>>
>> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
>>
>> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
>> ---
>> pp1   o 2.0  Faster Auctions
>>
>> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
>>
>> [1] o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, CuddleBeam, V.J Rada, Trigon, Alexis, P.S.S.
>>
>> A proposal may be pended for 1 AP, or for 1/20th the Floating Value
>> in shines (see the Secretary's report).
>>
>> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. Please note
>> that, due to its length, Proposal 7924 is listed last.
>>
>> //
>> ID: 7922
>> 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 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7922-7929

[Gaelan Steele]

> On Oct 15, 2017, at 8:20 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 8.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
> also a valid vote).
> 
> 
> ID Author(s) AI   Title Pender  Pend fee
> ---
> 7922*  Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act  Alexis  1 AP
FOR
> 7923*  Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt  Gaelan  1 AP
AGAINST; this needs some fixes
> 7924*  Aris, [1]  3.0  Contracts v8 Aris1 sh.
FOR
> 7925*  Aris, Alexis   3.0  Safety Regulations v2Aris1 AP
FOR
> 7926*  Alexis 3.0  Deregulation Alexis  1 AP
CONDITIONAL: if safety regulations passed (or is about to pass), then AGAINST. 
else, FOR. If, save for this sentence, a conditional vote on 7925 would cause 
the result of my vote on 7926 to be circular, act as if the result of that 
conditional resolves to PRESENT.
> 7927*  V.J. Rada, G.  2.0  Estate Auction Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.
FOR
> 7928*  G. 3.0  no we can't  G.  1 AP
FOR
> 7929*  V.J. Rada  1.0  Consumerism  V.J. Rada   1 sh.

AGAINST. The problem here is that deregistration without objection isn’t 
cuddlebeam-proof. We should just fix that instead.

Gaelan

> 
> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
> 
> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
> ---
> pp1   o 2.0  Faster Auctions
> 
> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
> 
> [1] o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, CuddleBeam, V.J Rada, Trigon, Alexis, P.S.S.
> 
> A proposal may be pended for 1 AP, or for 1/20th the Floating Value
> in shines (see the Secretary's report).
> 
> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. Please note
> that, due to its length, Proposal 7924 is listed last.
> 
> //
> ID: 7922
> 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

DIS: Re: BUS: E•MO•TION

[VJ Rada]

I mean put it in your list for the next "Cleanup Time" haha. I should
have noticed it earlier.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> Is it capitalized in the proposal? If not, I don’t believe I’m allowed to do 
> so.
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Oct 15, 2017, at 7:18 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> By the way, Hon. Rulekeepor: in the new emotions rule, "Registrar"
>> should be capitalized.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:43 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV5lzRHrGeg
>>>
>>> I change my emotion to melancholy because the enabling proposal, which
>>> I voted against, passed, and because I'm literally offering to pay
>>> people to hold my money with no other condition and nobody is
>>> accepting.
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: E•MO•TION

[Gaelan Steele]

Is it capitalized in the proposal? If not, I don’t believe I’m allowed to do so.

Gaelan

> On Oct 15, 2017, at 7:18 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> By the way, Hon. Rulekeepor: in the new emotions rule, "Registrar"
> should be capitalized.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:43 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV5lzRHrGeg
>> 
>> I change my emotion to melancholy because the enabling proposal, which
>> I voted against, passed, and because I'm literally offering to pay
>> people to hold my money with no other condition and nobody is
>> accepting.
>> 
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

[VJ Rada]

No I think that's an actually good proposal that provides a path to
victory that might be conceivable while also incentivising strict
rules enforcement. I would likely vote FOR it in its current form.
Although that said, perhaps if this comes in Victory Elections should
go, for in my opinion they're a bit similar.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> I know that I for one read over it and liked the idea and wasn't sure
> whether it was would work as is, but didn't have thoughts on how to improve
> it, therefore I didn't comment. I'm sorry that I wasn't very helpful, but I
> don't have ideas on how I could be.
>
>
> On 10/15/2017 08:35 PM, ATMunn . wrote:
>>
>> Hopefully this doesn't sound like I'm begging for attention or something,
>> but this seems to have been ignored. I don't mind that much, I'd just like
>> to know what stuff needs improvement. Have people just not noticed it yet,
>> does it really not have much wrong with it, or am I just too impatient?
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:55 PM, ATMunn . > > wrote:
>>
>> Okay, the second draft is finished. I've changed a bunch of stuff,
>> it's almost a completely different proposal now. I've taken into
>> consideration almost everything Aris and Alexis mentioned, so I've
>> given them co-authorship as well.
>> I'm sure it's still got plenty of flaws. But it should be better.
>> I'm just going to post this and go to bed now. I'll see what
>> people think in the morning.
>>
>> Title: "A Reward for Obedience v2"
>> Author: ATMunn
>> Co-Author(s): Aris, Alexis
>> AI: 1
>>
>> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Medals of Honour"
>> {
>> Medals of Honour are a destructible fixed currency tracked by
>> the Herald.
>>
>> [One note on this section here: I don't know whether or not
>> it's implied that players should be able to, by some means or
>> another, challenge whether or not a player is eligible if e
>> believes it is invalid.]
>> In the first week of an Agoran Month, any player CAN declare
>> emself to be eligible for a Medal of Honour by announcement if all
>> of the following are true:
>> * E has made at least 1 message to a public forum in the last
>> Agoran month.
>> [I really don't like having to include this, but if I don't
>> then players that literally do nothing can be eligible for Medals
>> of Honour.]
>> * E does not have negative Karma.
>> * In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
>> [I'm not exactly sure how to word the broken pledge thing, so
>> I've left it out for now.]
>>
>> [I've never written a rule containing an Agoran Decision
>> before, so I'm sure there's lots of flaws in this. I mainly copied
>> stuff from various places in the rules.]
>> In the second week of an Agoran Month, if there are any
>> players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by
>> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, initiate an Agoran
>> Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal of Honour.
>> For this decision, the valid votes are all players who are
>> eligible for a Medal of Honour, the vote collector is the Herald,
>> and the voting method is instant-runoff.
>> Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome is awarded a
>> Medal of Honour.
>>
>> If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Medals of Honour,
>> and e has not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by
>> announcement, destroying all of eir Medals of Honour.
>> }
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:18 PM, ATMunn . > > wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, both of you, for your suggestions. I'm working on a
>> revised version at the moment. One idea I had, regarding what
>> Alexis said about the idea of players declaring themselves
>> eligible for a Badge of Honor, (now Medal of Honour) is the
>> idea of the recordkeepor initiating an Agoran Decision on who
>> will get the medal. All players who declared themselves
>> eligible for a medal at the time of the initiation of the
>> Agoran Decision would be the possible votes. This would ease
>> the load on the recordkeepor even more, as e would only have
>> to worry about initiating and resolving the election.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Aris Merchant
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:50 AM, ATMunn .
>> >
>>
>> wrote:
>> > Title: A Reward for Obedience
>> > Author: 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Aris Merchant]

Fair. However, submitting a proposal is a way of making it available
to pend. You're basically putting it out into the world, and saying
that you're ready to have it passed with your name on it. It serves no
other intrinsic purpose, and indeed creates extra work for the
Promotor. That's why, IMHO, it's a better idea to proto it if you're not
sure about it.

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> If you aren't sure it's ready, you shouldn't pend it!
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 19:08 Aris Merchant,
>  wrote:
>>
>> As a general rule, if you aren't sure that something is read it should
>> be a proto, not a proposal.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> > I withdraw it; I had some revisions to do and it isn't ready.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 18:27 Aris Merchant,
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I pend this for 1 shiny.
>> >>
>> >> -Aris
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> >> > This is just a miscellaneous fix proposal:
>> >> >
>> >> > Proposal: High Power Cleanup (AI=3)
>> >> > {{{
>> >> > Text in square brackets is not a substantive part of this proposal
>> >> > and
>> >> > is
>> >> > ignored when it takes effect.
>> >> >
>> >> > Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it ceases
>> >> > to
>> >> > be a
>> >> > rule, its power is set to 0, and the Rulekeepor need no longer
>> >> > maintain
>> >> > a
>> >> > record of it."
>> >> >
>> >> > [There is a ruling that repealed rules have their power set to 0, but
>> >> > I'm
>> >> > not sure I fully agree with that conclusion; this makes it explicit
>> >> > which
>> >> > can't hurt anyway.]
>> >> >
>> >> > Set the power of all entities other than Rules, Regulations, and this
>> >> > Proposal to 0.
>> >> >
>> >> > [This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other
>> >> > entities. I
>> >> > believe that this actuall depowers old proposals, but that's probably
>> >> > a
>> >> > good
>> >> > thing to be quite honest.]
>> >> >
>> >> > Amend Rule 105, bullet 3 by appending "Unless specified otherwise by
>> >> > the
>> >> > re-enacting instrument, a re-enacted rule has power equal to the
>> >> > power
>> >> > it
>> >> > had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if power was not deifned
>> >> > at
>> >> > the
>> >> > time of that rule's repeal). If the re-enacting instrument is
>> >> > incapable
>> >> > of
>> >> > setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the
>> >> > re-enactment
>> >> > is
>> >> > null and void."
>> >> >
>> >> > [Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes
>> >> > it
>> >> > to
>> >> > work roughly the way you would expect it to.]
>> >> >
>> >> > Amend Rule 1023 by appending "The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to
>> >> > for
>> >> > determining whether two points in time are within N months of each
>> >> > other,
>> >> > for N greater than or equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth
>> >> > bullet
>> >> > in the first list.
>> >> >
>> >> > [This makes the logical extension to "within 6 months", which is
>> >> > used,
>> >> > explicit.]
>> >> > }}}
>> >> >
>> >> > -Alexis

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Alexis Hunt]

If you aren't sure it's ready, you shouldn't pend it!

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 19:08 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As a general rule, if you aren't sure that something is read it should
> be a proto, not a proposal.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> > I withdraw it; I had some revisions to do and it isn't ready.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 18:27 Aris Merchant,
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> I pend this for 1 shiny.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >> > This is just a miscellaneous fix proposal:
> >> >
> >> > Proposal: High Power Cleanup (AI=3)
> >> > {{{
> >> > Text in square brackets is not a substantive part of this proposal and
> >> > is
> >> > ignored when it takes effect.
> >> >
> >> > Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it ceases
> to
> >> > be a
> >> > rule, its power is set to 0, and the Rulekeepor need no longer
> maintain
> >> > a
> >> > record of it."
> >> >
> >> > [There is a ruling that repealed rules have their power set to 0, but
> >> > I'm
> >> > not sure I fully agree with that conclusion; this makes it explicit
> >> > which
> >> > can't hurt anyway.]
> >> >
> >> > Set the power of all entities other than Rules, Regulations, and this
> >> > Proposal to 0.
> >> >
> >> > [This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other
> >> > entities. I
> >> > believe that this actuall depowers old proposals, but that's probably
> a
> >> > good
> >> > thing to be quite honest.]
> >> >
> >> > Amend Rule 105, bullet 3 by appending "Unless specified otherwise by
> the
> >> > re-enacting instrument, a re-enacted rule has power equal to the power
> >> > it
> >> > had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if power was not deifned at
> >> > the
> >> > time of that rule's repeal). If the re-enacting instrument is
> incapable
> >> > of
> >> > setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the
> re-enactment
> >> > is
> >> > null and void."
> >> >
> >> > [Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes it
> >> > to
> >> > work roughly the way you would expect it to.]
> >> >
> >> > Amend Rule 1023 by appending "The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to
> for
> >> > determining whether two points in time are within N months of each
> >> > other,
> >> > for N greater than or equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth
> >> > bullet
> >> > in the first list.
> >> >
> >> > [This makes the logical extension to "within 6 months", which is used,
> >> > explicit.]
> >> > }}}
> >> >
> >> > -Alexis
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Alexis Hunt]

It's not that I want to ratify a scam but, rather, I would have done a
minor scam affecting the outcome and may yet do so if there's another
election; if the result is imposed by ratification, I would not get that
opportunity.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 18:29 ATMunn .,  wrote:

> ​erm. what is going on here?​
>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Aris Merchant]

As a general rule, if you aren't sure that something is read it should
be a proto, not a proposal.

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> I withdraw it; I had some revisions to do and it isn't ready.
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 18:27 Aris Merchant,
>  wrote:
>>
>> I pend this for 1 shiny.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> > This is just a miscellaneous fix proposal:
>> >
>> > Proposal: High Power Cleanup (AI=3)
>> > {{{
>> > Text in square brackets is not a substantive part of this proposal and
>> > is
>> > ignored when it takes effect.
>> >
>> > Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule is repealed, it ceases to
>> > be a
>> > rule, its power is set to 0, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain
>> > a
>> > record of it."
>> >
>> > [There is a ruling that repealed rules have their power set to 0, but
>> > I'm
>> > not sure I fully agree with that conclusion; this makes it explicit
>> > which
>> > can't hurt anyway.]
>> >
>> > Set the power of all entities other than Rules, Regulations, and this
>> > Proposal to 0.
>> >
>> > [This is a general cleanup that catches repealed rules and other
>> > entities. I
>> > believe that this actuall depowers old proposals, but that's probably a
>> > good
>> > thing to be quite honest.]
>> >
>> > Amend Rule 105, bullet 3 by appending "Unless specified otherwise by the
>> > re-enacting instrument, a re-enacted rule has power equal to the power
>> > it
>> > had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if power was not deifned at
>> > the
>> > time of that rule's repeal). If the re-enacting instrument is incapable
>> > of
>> > setting the re-enacted rule's power to that value, then the re-enactment
>> > is
>> > null and void."
>> >
>> > [Re-enactment currently doesn't have a specified power; this causes it
>> > to
>> > work roughly the way you would expect it to.]
>> >
>> > Amend Rule 1023 by appending "The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to for
>> > determining whether two points in time are within N months of each
>> > other,
>> > for N greater than or equal to 2." as a new paragraph in the fourth
>> > bullet
>> > in the first list.
>> >
>> > [This makes the logical extension to "within 6 months", which is used,
>> > explicit.]
>> > }}}
>> >
>> > -Alexis

Re: DIS: eval()

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

You want it to work where the players are the input device and Agora 
regularly checks for changes from the players, but I want it to be that 
players are the input and change Agora.



On 10/15/2017 08:52 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:

I’m afraid I don’t get the analogy.

Gaelan


On Oct 15, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
 wrote:

I disagree with this. I think the distinction is that you want Agora to work 
like USB, whereas now Agora works like PS/2.


On 10/15/2017 08:45 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:

There are many places where Agora essentially calls eval(T), where T is some 
text from a player. This includes:

The rules, of course
Proposals
Regulations
Other powered instruments (do we have any of those lying around?)
Public messages
Orgs
Agencies
Contracts
Old Pledges
Conditional votes
CFJs

I think we need a simple way to state in the rules that agora “reads” a piece 
of text and changes the gamestate accordingly, according to some list of things 
that that text is allowed to do:

* Proposals can impact things tracked by the rules
* Public messages can perform by-annoucement actions, etc
* Contracts can authorize player actions (contract-by-announcement) and punish 
players
* Conditional votes can choose a vote
* CFJs can pose a question
* The rules (I think) actually have no power over anything beyond their own 
scope

I think we might want to define something like “invoking” a piece of text, or 
giving an instrument with zero power the right to specify some limited things, 
or something.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: eval()

[Gaelan Steele]

I’m afraid I don’t get the analogy.

Gaelan

> On Oct 15, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> 
> I disagree with this. I think the distinction is that you want Agora to work 
> like USB, whereas now Agora works like PS/2.
> 
> 
> On 10/15/2017 08:45 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> There are many places where Agora essentially calls eval(T), where T is some 
>> text from a player. This includes:
>> 
>> The rules, of course
>> Proposals
>> Regulations
>> Other powered instruments (do we have any of those lying around?)
>> Public messages
>> Orgs
>> Agencies
>> Contracts
>> Old Pledges
>> Conditional votes
>> CFJs
>> 
>> I think we need a simple way to state in the rules that agora “reads” a 
>> piece of text and changes the gamestate accordingly, according to some list 
>> of things that that text is allowed to do:
>> 
>> * Proposals can impact things tracked by the rules
>> * Public messages can perform by-annoucement actions, etc
>> * Contracts can authorize player actions (contract-by-announcement) and 
>> punish players
>> * Conditional votes can choose a vote
>> * CFJs can pose a question
>> * The rules (I think) actually have no power over anything beyond their own 
>> scope
>> 
>> I think we might want to define something like “invoking” a piece of text, 
>> or giving an instrument with zero power the right to specify some limited 
>> things, or something.
>> 
>> Gaelan
> 

Re: DIS: PROTO: [Proposal] A Reward for Obedience

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I know that I for one read over it and liked the idea and wasn't sure 
whether it was would work as is, but didn't have thoughts on how to 
improve it, therefore I didn't comment. I'm sorry that I wasn't very 
helpful, but I don't have ideas on how I could be.



On 10/15/2017 08:35 PM, ATMunn . wrote:
Hopefully this doesn't sound like I'm begging for attention or 
something, but this seems to have been ignored. I don't mind that 
much, I'd just like to know what stuff needs improvement. Have people 
just not noticed it yet, does it really not have much wrong with it, 
or am I just too impatient?


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:55 PM, ATMunn . > wrote:


Okay, the second draft is finished. I've changed a bunch of stuff,
it's almost a completely different proposal now. I've taken into
consideration almost everything Aris and Alexis mentioned, so I've
given them co-authorship as well.
I'm sure it's still got plenty of flaws. But it should be better.
I'm just going to post this and go to bed now. I'll see what
people think in the morning.

Title: "A Reward for Obedience v2"
Author: ATMunn
Co-Author(s): Aris, Alexis
AI: 1

Create a new power-1 rule titled "Medals of Honour"
{
    Medals of Honour are a destructible fixed currency tracked by
the Herald.

    [One note on this section here: I don't know whether or not
it's implied that players should be able to, by some means or
another, challenge whether or not a player is eligible if e
believes it is invalid.]
    In the first week of an Agoran Month, any player CAN declare
emself to be eligible for a Medal of Honour by announcement if all
of the following are true:
    * E has made at least 1 message to a public forum in the last
Agoran month.
    [I really don't like having to include this, but if I don't
then players that literally do nothing can be eligible for Medals
of Honour.]
    * E does not have negative Karma.
    * In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
    [I'm not exactly sure how to word the broken pledge thing, so
I've left it out for now.]

    [I've never written a rule containing an Agoran Decision
before, so I'm sure there's lots of flaws in this. I mainly copied
stuff from various places in the rules.]
    In the second week of an Agoran Month, if there are any
players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour, the Herald CAN, by
announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, initiate an Agoran
Decision on who is to be awarded a Medal of Honour.
    For this decision, the valid votes are all players who are
eligible for a Medal of Honour, the vote collector is the Herald,
and the voting method is instant-runoff.
    Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome is awarded a
Medal of Honour.

    If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Medals of Honour,
and e has not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by
announcement, destroying all of eir Medals of Honour.
}

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:18 PM, ATMunn . > wrote:

Thanks, both of you, for your suggestions. I'm working on a
revised version at the moment. One idea I had, regarding what
Alexis said about the idea of players declaring themselves
eligible for a Badge of Honor, (now Medal of Honour) is the
idea of the recordkeepor initiating an Agoran Decision on who
will get the medal. All players who declared themselves
eligible for a medal at the time of the initiation of the
Agoran Decision would be the possible votes. This would ease
the load on the recordkeepor even more, as e would only have
to worry about initiating and resolving the election.

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:50 AM, ATMunn .
>
wrote:
> Title: A Reward for Obedience
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Author(s):
> AI: 1
>
> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Badges of Honor"
> {
>     Badges of Honor are an indestructible, player-owned
asset. The Referee
> is the recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.

I'd go with "Badges of Honor are a destructible fixed
currency tracked
by the Referee" (which would make the holder restriction
unnecessary),
or, if you want them to be transferable "Badges of Honor
are a liquid
currency tracked by the Referee. Ownership of Badges of
Honor is
 

Re: DIS: eval()

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I disagree with this. I think the distinction is that you want Agora to 
work like USB, whereas now Agora works like PS/2.



On 10/15/2017 08:45 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:

There are many places where Agora essentially calls eval(T), where T is some 
text from a player. This includes:

The rules, of course
Proposals
Regulations
Other powered instruments (do we have any of those lying around?)
Public messages
Orgs
Agencies
Contracts
Old Pledges
Conditional votes
CFJs

I think we need a simple way to state in the rules that agora “reads” a piece 
of text and changes the gamestate accordingly, according to some list of things 
that that text is allowed to do:

* Proposals can impact things tracked by the rules
* Public messages can perform by-annoucement actions, etc
* Contracts can authorize player actions (contract-by-announcement) and punish 
players
* Conditional votes can choose a vote
* CFJs can pose a question
* The rules (I think) actually have no power over anything beyond their own 
scope

I think we might want to define something like “invoking” a piece of text, or 
giving an instrument with zero power the right to specify some limited things, 
or something.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: eval()

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> There are many places where Agora essentially calls eval(T), where T is some 
> text from a player. This includes:
>
> The rules, of course
> Proposals
> Regulations
> Other powered instruments (do we have any of those lying around?)
> Public messages
> Orgs
> Agencies
> Contracts
> Old Pledges
> Conditional votes
> CFJs
>
> I think we need a simple way to state in the rules that agora “reads” a piece 
> of text and changes the gamestate accordingly, according to some list of 
> things that that text is allowed to do:

Why?

>
> * Proposals can impact things tracked by the rules
> * Public messages can perform by-annoucement actions, etc
> * Contracts can authorize player actions (contract-by-announcement) and 
> punish players
> * Conditional votes can choose a vote
> * CFJs can pose a question
> * The rules (I think) actually have no power over anything beyond their own 
> scope

Rule 2141 "A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern
the game generally, and is always taking effect. A rule's content
takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope." So the rules are
omnipotent.

-Aris

DIS: eval()

[Gaelan Steele]

There are many places where Agora essentially calls eval(T), where T is some 
text from a player. This includes:

The rules, of course
Proposals
Regulations
Other powered instruments (do we have any of those lying around?)
Public messages
Orgs
Agencies
Contracts
Old Pledges
Conditional votes
CFJs

I think we need a simple way to state in the rules that agora “reads” a piece 
of text and changes the gamestate accordingly, according to some list of things 
that that text is allowed to do:

* Proposals can impact things tracked by the rules
* Public messages can perform by-annoucement actions, etc
* Contracts can authorize player actions (contract-by-announcement) and punish 
players
* Conditional votes can choose a vote
* CFJs can pose a question
* The rules (I think) actually have no power over anything beyond their own 
scope

I think we might want to define something like “invoking” a piece of text, or 
giving an instrument with zero power the right to specify some limited things, 
or something.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[ATMunn .]

Oh, ok. Makes sense.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 20:26 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
> > Is this new or am I not aware of something?
>
> The reward's always been there, but only for shiny-pended proposals.
> AP-pending used to be a lot more common (but people tend to spam shiny-
> pends when Agora's close to broke, because the price is low then).
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 20:26 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
> Is this new or am I not aware of something?

The reward's always been there, but only for shiny-pended proposals.
AP-pending used to be a lot more common (but people tend to spam shiny-
pends when Agora's close to broke, because the price is low then).

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[ATMunn .]

​erm. what is going on here?​

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

You can't because you pended it with AP.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Oct 15, 2017, at 8:27 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> 
> TTttPF
> 
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:26 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> Is this new or am I not aware of something?
> 
> Well, either way, I guess I also claim a reward of two shinies for authoring 
> and pending a passed proposal.
> 
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:16 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> I claim the reward of two shinies for authoring and pending a passed proposal.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:08 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > Quorums of 8 again ugh.
> >
> > Stop voting y'all lmao.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7908-7921 below.
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
> >>  following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
> >>  Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!). If a
> >>  decision's voting period is still ongoing, I end it immediately
> >>  before resolving it and after resolving the previous decision.]
> >>
> >> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend fee
> >> ---
> >> 7908*  G.1.0  Silly season G.  OP [1]
> >> 7909*  G.1.2  No Lockout   G.  OP [1]
> >> 7910x  G.1.0  What is a rulekeepor G.  OP [1]
> >> 7911*  V.J. Rada 1.0  Infinite Money Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.
> >> 7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 AP [2]
> >> 7913*  ATMunn1.0  Cheer Up v7? ATMunn  1 AP
> >> 7914*  o 1.0  SFDVP [3]o   1 AP
> >> 7915x  CuddleBeam1.0  Terrifying Proposals Reward  CuddleBeam  1 AP
> >> 7916*  Aris, o, G.   1.0  Pro Pace v2  Aris1 AP
> >> 7917x  P.S.S. [4], o 3.0  Banking  P.S.S. [4]  1 sh.
> >> 7918*  P.S.S. [4]3.0  Vacant Deputisation Fix  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
> >> 7919x  P.S.S. [4]2.0  YSUIII. [5]  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
> >> 7920x  Gaelan, Aris  1.0  The Lint Screen v2   Gaelan  1 sh.
> >> 7921*  o, G. 2.0  Passive Income   o   1 AP
> >> [1] Official Proposal, inherently pending
> >> [2] There is some debate over whether this was actually pended twice, each
> >> attempt consuming 1 AP. This value is therefore provisional.
> >>
> >> || 7908 | 7909 | 7910 | 7911 | 7912 | 7913 | 7914 | 7915 | 7916 |
> >> 7917 | 7918 | 7919 | 7920 | 7921 |
> >> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> >> |Alexis  | F| F| A| F| F| A| F| A | F| A
> >> | F| A| A| A|
> >> |Aris| F| F| A| F| A| F| F| A | F| A
> >> | F| A| F| F|
> >> |ATMunn  | F| P| F| F| F| F| P| F | F| F
> >> | F| F| A| F|
> >> |G.  | F| F| F| F| P| F| F| A | P| P
> >> | F| A| A| F|
> >> |Gaelan  | F| P| A| F| F| F| F| P | F| P
> >> | F| A| F| F|
> >> |nichdel | F| P| A| F| P| A| F| A | P| P
> >> | P| A| P| P|
> >> |o   | F| F| A| F| F| F| F| A | F| P
> >> | F| A| P| F|
> >> |PSS | F| F| A| F| F| F| F| A | F| F
> >> | F| F| A| F|
> >> |Trigon  | F| F| A| F| P| F| A| A | F| F
> >> | F| F| F| F|
> >> |VJ Rada | FF   | FF   | AA   | FF   | FF   | AA   | P| | P| AA   |
> >> FF   |  | AA   | FF   |
> >> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> >> |F/A | 11/0 | 8/0  | 2/9  | 11/0 | 7/1  | 7/4  | 7/1  | 1/7 | 7/0  | 
> >> 3/4
> >> | 10/0 | 3/6  | 3/6  | 9/1  |
> >> |AI  | 1.0  | 1.2  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 3.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0 | 1.0  | 
> >> 3.0
> >> | 3.0  | 2.0  | 1.0  | 2.0  |
> >> |V   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 9 | 10   | 10
> >> | 10   | 9| 10   | 10   |
> >> |Q   | 5| 5| 5| 5| 5| 5| 5| 5 | 5| 5
> >> | 5| 5| 5| 5|
> >> |P   | T| T| F| T| T| T| T| F | T| F
> >> | T| F| F| T|
> >>
> >>
> >> The full text of each adopted proposal is included below.
> >>
> >> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[ATMunn .]

Is this new or am I not aware of something?

Well, either way, I guess I also claim a reward of two shinies for
authoring and pending a passed proposal.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:16 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> I claim the reward of two shinies for authoring and pending a passed
> proposal.
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:08 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > Quorums of 8 again ugh.
> >
> > Stop voting y'all lmao.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7908-7921 below.
> >>
> >> 
> 
> >>
> >> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
> >>  following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
> >>  Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!). If a
> >>  decision's voting period is still ongoing, I end it immediately
> >>  before resolving it and after resolving the previous decision.]
> >>
> >> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend
> fee
> >> 
> ---
> >> 7908*  G.1.0  Silly season G.  OP
> [1]
> >> 7909*  G.1.2  No Lockout   G.  OP
> [1]
> >> 7910x  G.1.0  What is a rulekeepor G.  OP
> [1]
> >> 7911*  V.J. Rada 1.0  Infinite Money Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.
> >> 7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 AP
> [2]
> >> 7913*  ATMunn1.0  Cheer Up v7? ATMunn  1 AP
> >> 7914*  o 1.0  SFDVP [3]o   1 AP
> >> 7915x  CuddleBeam1.0  Terrifying Proposals Reward  CuddleBeam  1 AP
> >> 7916*  Aris, o, G.   1.0  Pro Pace v2  Aris1 AP
> >> 7917x  P.S.S. [4], o 3.0  Banking  P.S.S. [4]  1 sh.
> >> 7918*  P.S.S. [4]3.0  Vacant Deputisation Fix  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
> >> 7919x  P.S.S. [4]2.0  YSUIII. [5]  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
> >> 7920x  Gaelan, Aris  1.0  The Lint Screen v2   Gaelan  1 sh.
> >> 7921*  o, G. 2.0  Passive Income   o   1 AP
> >> [1] Official Proposal, inherently pending
> >> [2] There is some debate over whether this was actually pended twice,
> each
> >> attempt consuming 1 AP. This value is therefore provisional.
> >>
> >> || 7908 | 7909 | 7910 | 7911 | 7912 | 7913 | 7914 | 7915 | 7916
> |
> >> 7917 | 7918 | 7919 | 7920 | 7921 |
> >> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
> -+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> >> |Alexis  | F| F| A| F| F| A| F| A | F| A
> >> | F| A| A| A|
> >> |Aris| F| F| A| F| A| F| F| A | F| A
> >> | F| A| F| F|
> >> |ATMunn  | F| P| F| F| F| F| P| F | F| F
> >> | F| F| A| F|
> >> |G.  | F| F| F| F| P| F| F| A | P| P
> >> | F| A| A| F|
> >> |Gaelan  | F| P| A| F| F| F| F| P | F| P
> >> | F| A| F| F|
> >> |nichdel | F| P| A| F| P| A| F| A | P| P
> >> | P| A| P| P|
> >> |o   | F| F| A| F| F| F| F| A | F| P
> >> | F| A| P| F|
> >> |PSS | F| F| A| F| F| F| F| A | F| F
> >> | F| F| A| F|
> >> |Trigon  | F| F| A| F| P| F| A| A | F| F
> >> | F| F| F| F|
> >> |VJ Rada | FF   | FF   | AA   | FF   | FF   | AA   | P| | P|
> AA   |
> >> FF   |  | AA   | FF   |
> >> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
> -+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> >> |F/A | 11/0 | 8/0  | 2/9  | 11/0 | 7/1  | 7/4  | 7/1  | 1/7 | 7/0
> | 3/4
> >> | 10/0 | 3/6  | 3/6  | 9/1  |
> >> |AI  | 1.0  | 1.2  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 3.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0 | 1.0
> | 3.0
> >> | 3.0  | 2.0  | 1.0  | 2.0  |
> >> |V   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 9 | 10   |
> 10
> >> | 10   | 9| 10   | 10   |
> >> |Q   | 5| 5| 5| 5| 5| 5| 5| 5 | 5| 5
> >> | 5| 5| 5| 5|
> >> |P   | T| T| F| T| T| T| T| F | T| F
> >> | T| F| F| T|
> >>
> >>
> >> The full text of each adopted proposal is included below.
> >>
> >> //
> >> ID: 7908
> >> Title: Silly season
> >> Adoption index: 1.0
> >> Author: G.
> >> Co-authors:
> >> Official Proposal
> >>
> >>
> >> Re-enact Rule 1650 (Silliness) with the following text:
> >>
> >>   Each Nomic Week a 

DIS: Re: election end discussion

[Kerim Aydin]

Actually, retroactively replacing an Officeholder is ugly.  Better version:

The following document is ratified:
{
[winner] has just now won an election for Prime Minister.
[winner] has just now won an election for ADoP.
}

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Proto ratification statement (this can also be in a proposal):
> 
> The following document is ratified:
> {
> On Mon Oct 15 03:18:27 UTC, [winner] won an election for Prime Minister.
> On Mon Oct 15 03:18:27 UTC, [winner] won an election for ADoP.
> }
> 
> 
> The current (new) rule reads:
>When a player wins an election, e is installed into the associated
>office and the election ends.
> So asserting that someone "won an election" at a certain time installs em
> with the right status and ends the election.
> 
> 
> 
>

DIS: election end discussion

[Kerim Aydin]

Proto ratification statement (this can also be in a proposal):

The following document is ratified:
{
On Mon Oct 15 03:18:27 UTC, [winner] won an election for Prime Minister.
On Mon Oct 15 03:18:27 UTC, [winner] won an election for ADoP.
}


The current (new) rule reads:
   When a player wins an election, e is installed into the associated
   office and the election ends.
So asserting that someone "won an election" at a certain time installs em
with the right status and ends the election.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

[Kerim Aydin]

reminder to self:  Equity is Hard.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> True. But quorum is 8.0 right now. It has happened (actually twice,
> although one of the times ratified away) that proposals distributed on
> their own due to an error in the original pool did't meet quorum.
> Early in the week I was hoping Gaelan would revise eir proposal, as e
> said e wanted to. Then I was busy. Now I have time, but I'm going to
> do the entire report soon, so it made sense to consolidate.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > In an equity sense, I'd say the significant delay for someone who paid
> > to pend a proposal is worse than the inconvenience of having to reply
> > to two voting messages to vote.
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> If by "the report" you mean the one I just I did, I avoided that
> >> because I'm preparing the next report and its easier for people to
> >> vote when everything is in one place.
> >>
> >> -Aris
> >>
> >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >> > I would submit, as arguments, that the Promotor was reminded and had the
> >> > opportunity to avoid the violation by distributing the proposal at the 
> >> > time
> >> > of the report.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:59 Aris Merchant,
> >> >  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Very true. I plead guilty and request the mercy of the Referee for
> >> >> this error, noting that it was an inadvertent mistake.
> >> >>
> >> >> -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

[Aris Merchant]

True. But quorum is 8.0 right now. It has happened (actually twice,
although one of the times ratified away) that proposals distributed on
their own due to an error in the original pool did't meet quorum.
Early in the week I was hoping Gaelan would revise eir proposal, as e
said e wanted to. Then I was busy. Now I have time, but I'm going to
do the entire report soon, so it made sense to consolidate.

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> In an equity sense, I'd say the significant delay for someone who paid
> to pend a proposal is worse than the inconvenience of having to reply
> to two voting messages to vote.
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> If by "the report" you mean the one I just I did, I avoided that
>> because I'm preparing the next report and its easier for people to
>> vote when everything is in one place.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> > I would submit, as arguments, that the Promotor was reminded and had the
>> > opportunity to avoid the violation by distributing the proposal at the time
>> > of the report.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:59 Aris Merchant,
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Very true. I plead guilty and request the mercy of the Referee for
>> >> this error, noting that it was an inadvertent mistake.
>> >>
>> >> -Aris
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

[Kerim Aydin]

In an equity sense, I'd say the significant delay for someone who paid
to pend a proposal is worse than the inconvenience of having to reply
to two voting messages to vote.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> If by "the report" you mean the one I just I did, I avoided that
> because I'm preparing the next report and its easier for people to
> vote when everything is in one place.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> > I would submit, as arguments, that the Promotor was reminded and had the
> > opportunity to avoid the violation by distributing the proposal at the time
> > of the report.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:59 Aris Merchant,
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> Very true. I plead guilty and request the mercy of the Referee for
> >> this error, noting that it was an inadvertent mistake.
> >>
> >> -Aris

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[VJ Rada]

Lmao no I'm not ratifying a scam for Alexis here if I can help it.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> I would possibly object to that, as I had a scam planned but didn't fire it
>> as a result of the decisions being invalid; I wouldn't support ratifying if
>> it would have made a difference.
>
> If we can't agree to a ratification, then I'd attempt it by Proposal asserting
> what happened; still faster then re-starting a whole election.
>
> I'm not sure I see other people letting you ratify a scamworthy condition 
> in...?
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

[Aris Merchant]

For the sake of clarity, it is my interpretation of the relevant rules
that the Promotor is required to distribute all proposals once each
week, but not necessarily to distribute _all_ proposals in a given
week. I did so last week, with the ones I know about, and will do it
again this week. Either a green card or a yellow card would seem
reasonable under the circumstances.

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> If by "the report" you mean the one I just I did, I avoided that
> because I'm preparing the next report and its easier for people to
> vote when everything is in one place.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> I would submit, as arguments, that the Promotor was reminded and had the
>> opportunity to avoid the violation by distributing the proposal at the time
>> of the report.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:59 Aris Merchant,
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Very true. I plead guilty and request the mercy of the Referee for
>>> this error, noting that it was an inadvertent mistake.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>>> > I Point a Finger at Aris, alleging that e failed to distribute the
>>> > proposal
>>> > identified below as pp3 last week, thereby failing to distribute all
>>> > pending
>>> > proposals.
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:38 Aris Merchant,
>>> >  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> This following is a revision to the proposal pool from my last report.
>>> >>
>>> >> The proposal pool contains the following proposals:
>>> >>
>>> >> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ---
>>> >> pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
>>> >> pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
>>> >> pp3* Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act
>>> >> pp4* Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt
>>> >>
>>> >> Legend: * : 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 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I would possibly object to that, as I had a scam planned but didn't fire it
> as a result of the decisions being invalid; I wouldn't support ratifying if 
> it would have made a difference.

If we can't agree to a ratification, then I'd attempt it by Proposal asserting
what happened; still faster then re-starting a whole election.

I'm not sure I see other people letting you ratify a scamworthy condition in...?

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Kerim Aydin]

A little earlier VJ Rada CoE'd that the Decision part of the election never 
even began (and e was right), so you have to ratify a bit more than the
resolution part.  

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Or you could just ratify the resolution of the election. That's even simpler.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Actually, maybe the easiest thing is to wait 4 hours for the original
> > voting period to end (unofficially), tally the votes, and then ratify
> > the ADoP report with the winners as officeholders and ratify the fact
> > that they were installed via election and the election is over?
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> I'll have a go in a bit.
> >>
> >> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> >> > I actually don't know how to properly phrase that under the new Election 
> >> > rules.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin  
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I object.
> >> > >
> >> > > This would take 2 weeks + 4 day objection period + pauses in between.
> >
> >
> >
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

[Aris Merchant]

If by "the report" you mean the one I just I did, I avoided that
because I'm preparing the next report and its easier for people to
vote when everything is in one place.

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> I would submit, as arguments, that the Promotor was reminded and had the
> opportunity to avoid the violation by distributing the proposal at the time
> of the report.
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:59 Aris Merchant,
>  wrote:
>>
>> Very true. I plead guilty and request the mercy of the Referee for
>> this error, noting that it was an inadvertent mistake.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> > I Point a Finger at Aris, alleging that e failed to distribute the
>> > proposal
>> > identified below as pp3 last week, thereby failing to distribute all
>> > pending
>> > proposals.
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:38 Aris Merchant,
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This following is a revision to the proposal pool from my last report.
>> >>
>> >> The proposal pool contains the following proposals:
>> >>
>> >> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
>> >> pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
>> >> pp3* Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act
>> >> pp4* Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt
>> >>
>> >> Legend: * : 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 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

[Alexis Hunt]

I would submit, as arguments, that the Promotor was reminded and had the
opportunity to avoid the violation by distributing the proposal at the time
of the report.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:59 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Very true. I plead guilty and request the mercy of the Referee for
> this error, noting that it was an inadvertent mistake.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> > I Point a Finger at Aris, alleging that e failed to distribute the
> proposal
> > identified below as pp3 last week, thereby failing to distribute all
> pending
> > proposals.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:38 Aris Merchant,
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >> This following is a revision to the proposal pool from my last report.
> >>
> >> The proposal pool contains the following proposals:
> >>
> >> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
> >>
> >>
> ---
> >> pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
> >> pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
> >> pp3* Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act
> >> pp4* Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt
> >>
> >> Legend: * : 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 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Proposal Pool (revised)

[Aris Merchant]

Very true. I plead guilty and request the mercy of the Referee for
this error, noting that it was an inadvertent mistake.

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> I Point a Finger at Aris, alleging that e failed to distribute the proposal
> identified below as pp3 last week, thereby failing to distribute all pending
> proposals.
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:38 Aris Merchant,
>  wrote:
>>
>> This following is a revision to the proposal pool from my last report.
>>
>> The proposal pool contains the following proposals:
>>
>> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
>>
>> ---
>> pp1  nichdel3.0  Slower Promotion
>> pp2  nichdel1.0  Guaranteed Stampage
>> pp3* Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act
>> pp4* Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt
>>
>> Legend: * : 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 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Aris Merchant]

Or you could just ratify the resolution of the election. That's even simpler.

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Actually, maybe the easiest thing is to wait 4 hours for the original
> voting period to end (unofficially), tally the votes, and then ratify
> the ADoP report with the winners as officeholders and ratify the fact
> that they were installed via election and the election is over?
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I'll have a go in a bit.
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> > I actually don't know how to properly phrase that under the new Election 
>> > rules.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin  
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I object.
>> > >
>> > > This would take 2 weeks + 4 day objection period + pauses in between.
>
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Alexis Hunt]

I would possibly object to that, as I had a scam planned but didn't fire it
as a result of the decisions being invalid; I wouldn't support ratifying if
it would have made a difference.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:56 Kerim Aydin,  wrote:

>
>
> Actually, maybe the easiest thing is to wait 4 hours for the original
> voting period to end (unofficially), tally the votes, and then ratify
> the ADoP report with the winners as officeholders and ratify the fact
> that they were installed via election and the election is over?
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'll have a go in a bit.
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > > I actually don't know how to properly phrase that under the new
> Election rules.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I object.
> > > >
> > > > This would take 2 weeks + 4 day objection period + pauses in between.
>
>
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Kerim Aydin]

Actually, maybe the easiest thing is to wait 4 hours for the original
voting period to end (unofficially), tally the votes, and then ratify
the ADoP report with the winners as officeholders and ratify the fact
that they were installed via election and the election is over?

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I'll have a go in a bit.
> 
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > I actually don't know how to properly phrase that under the new Election 
> > rules.
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I object.
> > >
> > > This would take 2 weeks + 4 day objection period + pauses in between.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I'm fine with it.


On 10/15/2017 05:37 PM, VJ Rada wrote:

The election was validly initiated. It looks like for four hours or so
that we're still in the Nomination Phase: and then if there is more
than one candidate we'll go in an election, with the Assessor counting
(hope you're ok with that added duty PSS)

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:


On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 AP [2]

So, um ... anyone want to opine on the status of the PM or ADoP elections?

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Terrifying Proposals Reward (revised)

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 16:42 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> ID: 7915
> Title: Terrifying Proposals Reward
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: CuddleBeam
> Co-authors:
> 
> The victor of the "The Terrifying Proposals" Proposal Competition,
> once ever via this effect, can gain 3 Stamps from Agora by
> announcement.

What's the penalty for Invisibilitating nowadays?

(Incidentally, this is an argument in the "should proposals keep their
Power after being adopted" debate, but I'm not sure whether it's for or
against.)

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Kerim Aydin]

I'll have a go in a bit.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I actually don't know how to properly phrase that under the new Election 
> rules.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > I object.
> >
> > This would take 2 weeks + 4 day objection period + pauses in between.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[VJ Rada]

I actually don't know how to properly phrase that under the new Election rules.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I object.
>
> This would take 2 weeks + 4 day objection period + pauses in between.
>
> If instead you ratify that a decision started back when you said it
> did (but with the new vote collector and all previous options as
> present nominees), it could all be wrapped up this week.
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> I intend to ratify the following without objection. It is wrong as
>> there are or may be ongoing elections. I wish to ratify it to allow
>> new elections for the positions of ADoP and PM
>>
>> {{There are no ongoing elections.}}
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> >> I was waiting because I noticed days later and I hoped nobody else did.
>> >>
>> >> Fun fact: Only one of the Decisions I've initiated was ever valid.
>> >> Obviously ratified now but I can't seem to get all four conditions
>> >> lmao. Only one person (Alexis) ever noticed, and e didn't this time.
>> >>
>> >> I now have a "checklist" google doc I plan to consult, if ADoP again haha.
>> >
>> > Yah it's a huge pain in the rear I have a copy of the boilerplate from
>> > the Promotor that I know is right and I'm paranoid about following word-
>> > for-word (with appropriate substitutions) whenever I initiate one.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Safety Regulations

[Aris Merchant]

Darn, typo. I retract Safety Regulations. I submit the following proposal.

-Aris

---
Title: Safety Regulations v2
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s): Alexis

Amend Rule 2493, "Regulations", by

  * Replacing every instance of the word "instrument" with the words "textual
entity"; and
  * Amending the second paragraph to read in full "A regulation must be
authorized by at least one rule in order for it to exist. A regulation has
effect on the game (only) insofar as the rule or rules that authorized it
permit it to have effect. If reasonably possible, a regulation should be
interpreted so as to defer to other rules. The procedure for resolving
conflict between regulations is the same as it is for rules (for the
purposes of resolving conflicts only, a regulation is treated as if it
had the power of its least powerful parent rule)."

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I was waiting because I noticed days later and I hoped nobody else did.
> 
> Fun fact: Only one of the Decisions I've initiated was ever valid.
> Obviously ratified now but I can't seem to get all four conditions
> lmao. Only one person (Alexis) ever noticed, and e didn't this time.
> 
> I now have a "checklist" google doc I plan to consult, if ADoP again haha.

Yah it's a huge pain in the rear I have a copy of the boilerplate from
the Promotor that I know is right and I'm paranoid about following word-
for-word (with appropriate substitutions) whenever I initiate one.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[VJ Rada]

I was waiting because I noticed days later and I hoped nobody else did.

Fun fact: Only one of the Decisions I've initiated was ever valid.
Obviously ratified now but I can't seem to get all four conditions
lmao. Only one person (Alexis) ever noticed, and e didn't this time.

I now have a "checklist" google doc I plan to consult, if ADoP again haha.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> >By the rules of the time, the Decision was initiated correctly.
>>
>> THIS IS NOT TRUE. By the rules of the time, they were initiated
>> wrongly. By the UNAMENDED rules of today (Initiating Agoran Decisions,
>> rule 107), not changed at all by new proposals) they were still wrong.
>> I am taking a quibble with form UNRELATED to the new proposal. There's
>> a reason every election initation before me inclued "and the valid
>> options are PRESENT and the players" or something like it)
>>
>> Please retract your CFJ.
>
> Oh, I see - absolutely, reading too quickly.  I withdraw my CFJ.
>
> You were waiting to see if you were winning, weren't you :P.
>
> (But we're still stuck in getting things going...)
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: 愚かな人

[Josh T]

Oh dear, I guess I should prepare for this.

天火狐

On 15 October 2017 at 16:22, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I designate 天火狐 to be next week's Silly Person.
>
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I now, to a-b, officially "identify" the lack of options noted in my 
> initiation.
> 
> The ELECTIONS were still initiated (one by G. and one by me) but the
> DECISIONS were not.

Anyway, if you're right, I think we're worse-off now then if you'd let the
Decision initiation self-ratify.

1.  The election was initiated.

2.  We're not in the nomination period, because it didn't start when the
 election was initiated.

3.  You CANNOT start a Decision until after the nomination period ends.

4.  So the Decision can't be started, ever, but the election is ongoing.

(if we'd let the start self-ratify, or if I'm right that it's started anyway,
we be able to get out of that).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgments of 3570-3571. (Was Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3571 assigned to Nichdel)

[Kerim Aydin]

Gotcha, thanks.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> E's judging that the document I ratified ratified GOD into existence
> but did not change the past to establish BOO.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Don't your arguments imply FALSE for CFJ 3571 (the CFJ statement is
> > "G: Overlord of Dunce is an Agency.")
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> >> I judge CFJ 3570 FALSE. I judge CFJ 3571 TRUE.
> >>
> >> First there's little doubt that "G is Overlord of Dunce" is not an
> >> agency, because the name is invalid. Thus, it didn't enable any
> >> abilities. The Superintendent's report does not self-ratify, so GOD
> >> wasn't ratified into existence until VJ Rada ratified a document
> >> asserting the existence of an agency that could be called GOD.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgments of 3570-3571. (Was Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3571 assigned to Nichdel)

[VJ Rada]

E's judging that the document I ratified ratified GOD into existence
but did not change the past to establish BOO.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Don't your arguments imply FALSE for CFJ 3571 (the CFJ statement is
> "G: Overlord of Dunce is an Agency.")
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>> I judge CFJ 3570 FALSE. I judge CFJ 3571 TRUE.
>>
>> First there's little doubt that "G is Overlord of Dunce" is not an
>> agency, because the name is invalid. Thus, it didn't enable any
>> abilities. The Superintendent's report does not self-ratify, so GOD
>> wasn't ratified into existence until VJ Rada ratified a document
>> asserting the existence of an agency that could be called GOD.
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgments of 3570-3571. (Was Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3571 assigned to Nichdel)

[Kerim Aydin]

Don't your arguments imply FALSE for CFJ 3571 (the CFJ statement is
"G: Overlord of Dunce is an Agency.")

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> I judge CFJ 3570 FALSE. I judge CFJ 3571 TRUE.
> 
> First there's little doubt that "G is Overlord of Dunce" is not an
> agency, because the name is invalid. Thus, it didn't enable any
> abilities. The Superintendent's report does not self-ratify, so GOD
> wasn't ratified into existence until VJ Rada ratified a document
> asserting the existence of an agency that could be called GOD.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 08:54 +1100, VJ Rada wrote:
> > And the notice of initiation lacked any set of the valid votes, which
> > I wasn't going to point out but now do. Therefore, the Agoran
> > Decisions were never initiated.
> 
> Does pointing it out to a-d count?
> 
> I'd recommend an explicit "CoE" to a-b, as the simplest way to give
> certainty about the gamestate. (That is, unless more uncertainty is
> considered a good thing.)

I'm really not sure you can retroactively reconstruct the gamestate like
that, given that it was a perfectly valid announcement when it happened.  
If a CFJ is phrased past-tense:
"Was a decision initiated on [date]" 
it would pretty clearly be true, to say otherwise is to ratify the
past without actually doing so.

Think of the consequences:  if we could do this, we could undo lots of
things that don't self-ratify (e.g. we could change the Winning rules
and say "because you can't Win that way by the rules now, you couldn't
have won that way back then").

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> Alternatively: the rules of Initiating Agoran Decision state "This
> notice is invalid if it lacks any of the following information, and
> the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is
> published:
> 
> The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781").
> 
> A clear indication of the set of valid votes.
> 
> The identity of the vote collector."
> 
> And the notice of initiation lacked any set of the valid votes, which
> I wasn't going to point out but now do. Therefore, the Agoran
> Decisions were never initiated.

You should do this to the PF, but I'm not sure it works; we haven't 
"ratified" the past - the information was not lacking when it was
initiated, so it was initiated - retroactively saying it wasn't is
quite a stretch (but probably worth trying anyway...)

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 08:54 +1100, VJ Rada wrote:
> And the notice of initiation lacked any set of the valid votes, which
> I wasn't going to point out but now do. Therefore, the Agoran
> Decisions were never initiated.

Does pointing it out to a-d count?

I'd recommend an explicit "CoE" to a-b, as the simplest way to give
certainty about the gamestate. (That is, unless more uncertainty is
considered a good thing.)

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> The rules now also provide no way for the ADoP to resolve such an
> Agoran decision, but the election's initiation stated that the ADoP
> was the resolver. I guess the election would sort of dissolve in thin
> air if this interpretation was taken.

It would be pretty funny if it could never be resolved, but a new one
could never be started because the present one is "in progress".

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[VJ Rada]

Alternatively: the rules of Initiating Agoran Decision state "This
notice is invalid if it lacks any of the following information, and
the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is
published:

The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781").

A clear indication of the set of valid votes.

The identity of the vote collector."

And the notice of initiation lacked any set of the valid votes, which
I wasn't going to point out but now do. Therefore, the Agoran
Decisions were never initiated.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Some thoughts:
>
> 1. The new rule says:
>
> When an election is initiated, it enters the nomination period
>
> Since this wasn't in effect "when the election was initiated", the
> election couldn't have entered the nomination period.  So I'm
> pretty sure we're not in the nomination period.
>
> 2. It's possible that the election Decision is ongoing, but resolving
> it will fail to install the officeholder (e.g. because the vote
> collector is the wrong vote collector).
>
> 3.  I dunno.
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I will contradict you.  If you asked the question "is a Decision ongoing
>> for these elections" I'd say the answer would be yes.  I think we're in the
>> Decision phase.  (I'll wait for more discussion before CFJing).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> > If anyone else wants to contradict me on what I think happens, go for it.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:39 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> > > I nominate myself as a candidate for both ADoP and Prime Minister. I
>> > > am uncommitted.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:37 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> > >> The election was validly initiated. It looks like for four hours or so
>> > >> that we're still in the Nomination Phase: and then if there is more
>> > >> than one candidate we'll go in an election, with the Assessor counting
>> > >> (hope you're ok with that added duty PSS)
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Kerim Aydin  
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> >  7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 
>> >  AP [2]
>> > >>>
>> > >>> So, um ... anyone want to opine on the status of the PM or ADoP 
>> > >>> elections?
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> From V.J. Rada
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > From V.J. Rada
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>> >
>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Kerim Aydin]

Some thoughts:

1. The new rule says:

When an election is initiated, it enters the nomination period

Since this wasn't in effect "when the election was initiated", the
election couldn't have entered the nomination period.  So I'm
pretty sure we're not in the nomination period.

2. It's possible that the election Decision is ongoing, but resolving
it will fail to install the officeholder (e.g. because the vote
collector is the wrong vote collector).

3.  I dunno.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I will contradict you.  If you asked the question "is a Decision ongoing
> for these elections" I'd say the answer would be yes.  I think we're in the 
> Decision phase.  (I'll wait for more discussion before CFJing).
> 
> 
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > If anyone else wants to contradict me on what I think happens, go for it.
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:39 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > > I nominate myself as a candidate for both ADoP and Prime Minister. I
> > > am uncommitted.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:37 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > >> The election was validly initiated. It looks like for four hours or so
> > >> that we're still in the Nomination Phase: and then if there is more
> > >> than one candidate we'll go in an election, with the Assessor counting
> > >> (hope you're ok with that added duty PSS)
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Kerim Aydin  
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> >  7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 
> >  AP [2]
> > >>>
> > >>> So, um ... anyone want to opine on the status of the PM or ADoP 
> > >>> elections?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> From V.J. Rada
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > From V.J. Rada
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > From V.J. Rada
> >
> 
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[VJ Rada]

I guess this is "an Agoran decision
 to select the winner of the election (the poll).". The rule
provides that
 "For this
 decision, the Vote Collector is the Assessor, the valid
 options are the candidates for that election (including
 those who become candidates after its initiation), and the
 voting method is instant runoff."

The rules now also provide no way for the ADoP to resolve such an
Agoran decision, but the election's initiation stated that the ADoP
was the resolver. I guess the election would sort of dissolve in thin
air if this interpretation was taken.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I will contradict you.  If you asked the question "is a Decision ongoing
> for these elections" I'd say the answer would be yes.  I think we're in the
> Decision phase.  (I'll wait for more discussion before CFJing).
>
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> If anyone else wants to contradict me on what I think happens, go for it.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:39 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> > I nominate myself as a candidate for both ADoP and Prime Minister. I
>> > am uncommitted.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:37 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >> The election was validly initiated. It looks like for four hours or so
>> >> that we're still in the Nomination Phase: and then if there is more
>> >> than one candidate we'll go in an election, with the Assessor counting
>> >> (hope you're ok with that added duty PSS)
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Kerim Aydin  
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>  7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 AP 
>>  [2]
>> >>>
>> >>> So, um ... anyone want to opine on the status of the PM or ADoP 
>> >>> elections?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J. Rada
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Kerim Aydin]

I will contradict you.  If you asked the question "is a Decision ongoing
for these elections" I'd say the answer would be yes.  I think we're in the 
Decision phase.  (I'll wait for more discussion before CFJing).


On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> If anyone else wants to contradict me on what I think happens, go for it.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:39 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > I nominate myself as a candidate for both ADoP and Prime Minister. I
> > am uncommitted.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:37 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >> The election was validly initiated. It looks like for four hours or so
> >> that we're still in the Nomination Phase: and then if there is more
> >> than one candidate we'll go in an election, with the Assessor counting
> >> (hope you're ok with that added duty PSS)
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Kerim Aydin  
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>  7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 AP 
>  [2]
> >>>
> >>> So, um ... anyone want to opine on the status of the PM or ADoP elections?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[VJ Rada]

The election was validly initiated. It looks like for four hours or so
that we're still in the Nomination Phase: and then if there is more
than one candidate we'll go in an election, with the Assessor counting
(hope you're ok with that added duty PSS)

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:24 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> 7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 AP [2]
>
> So, um ... anyone want to opine on the status of the PM or ADoP elections?
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3571 assigned to Nichdel

[Nic Evans]

Wow I can't read today. Carry on.


On 10/15/17 16:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> The thing you quoted says "with Shinies"...?
>
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>> On 10/06/17 14:14, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> [Sorry, I initially missed the second "linked" CFJ in the below message.]
>>>
>>>
> I also call a linked CFJ  (yes, I know those don't exist) with Shinies
> with the statement: "G: Overlord of Dunce is an Agency."
>> Did this linked CFJ work? It doesn't say how it was paid for.
>>
>>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3571 assigned to Nichdel

[Kerim Aydin]

The thing you quoted says "with Shinies"...?

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 10/06/17 14:14, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > [Sorry, I initially missed the second "linked" CFJ in the below message.]
> >
> >
> >>> I also call a linked CFJ  (yes, I know those don't exist) with Shinies
> >>> with the statement: "G: Overlord of Dunce is an Agency."
> 
> Did this linked CFJ work? It doesn't say how it was paid for.
> 
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3571 assigned to Nichdel

[Nic Evans]

On 10/06/17 14:14, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> [Sorry, I initially missed the second "linked" CFJ in the below message.]
>
>
>>> I also call a linked CFJ  (yes, I know those don't exist) with Shinies
>>> with the statement: "G: Overlord of Dunce is an Agency."

Did this linked CFJ work? It doesn't say how it was paid for.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:17 Aris Merchant
>  wrote
>>
>> No, there definitely is a problem with giving rule permission for
>> people to define arbitrary things that could be paradoxical. Both
>> organizations and agencies, which this replaces, have similar
>> prohibitions. This eliminates boilerplate in other places while
>> simultaneously creating a nice framework for conditionality. I'll
>> consider merging the two concepts though.
>
>
> Fair. Ok.
>
>> > These amendments to this rule seem wholly unnecessary to the rest of
>> > this
>> > proposal and should be at least separated out. As near as I can tell,
>> > you
>> > don't actually take advantage of any of the changes here, and I'm not
>> > sure I
>> > like them. The only one that seems to me immediately useful is possibly
>> > securing it, but that definition doesn't need to be in this proposal. I
>> > don't see why a proposal about contracts needs to change the mechanics
>> > of
>> > proposal submission on behalf of other players.
>>
>> It doesn't, but I'm tweaking the acting on behalf rule so other rules
>> can specify exceptions, and this is a sensible one. There was a
>> problem with this once, and now seems like as good a time as any to
>> fix it.
>
>
> I don't think that this is a sensible one at all, to be honest. Why should
> acting on behalf of someone to submit a proposal not make em the author? It
> may well be that that's a change we want, but it shouldn't be part of this
> proposal. This is the only rule in your proposal that includes an act on
> behalf exception, so you really can get away with moving this all out to
> another proposal.

Okay, removed. I'm keeping the "rules can make exceptions" portion
though, because it's needed for consent.

> Compare also the concept of Executor, which is used in one place. It may be
> better to use that concept instead.
>
>> > The deference clause is also broken; per rule 1030, deference only works
>> > where the rules have the same power. But also I'm not sure what it is
>> > actually trying to do: nothing in this rule actually provides a
>> > mechanism to
>> > act on behalf of another person; only to define what it means for a rule
>> > to
>> > allow em to do so. Interactions of when acting on behalf is or isn't
>> > allowed
>> > will (and should remain) determined by precedence of the rules involved.
>>
>> It's in the current rule, and I'd prefer not to mess with it if I
>> don't have to. It was probably added for some reason.
>
>
> Oh, so it is. Withdrawn.
>
>> What's wrong with regulations? They may well be scamable, but they
>> only work as the rule creating them allows them to, so if there power
>> is limited I don't see the harm. I don't really get why you're so
>> upset about them. The other places they're used are to allow the
>> Notary to exempt contracts from sustenance, and to put some frankly
>> rather minimal throttling restrictions on contract changes. The only
>> even vaguely dangerous regulations thing in the entire proposal is
>> this, so if you wish I can remove this and put yet another specially
>> exception in the assets rule.
>
>
> Mostly replied in the other thread, but I would deifnitely prefer to see
> this removed. What exception would be needed in the assets rule for this?
> I'm confused.

To be the recordkeepor for an asset you must be bound by its backing
document. This portion has been removed, but I'm not going to remove
all regulations from the proposal.

>> > I'm confused by this. A contract is two entities, the text and some
>> > other
>> > thing? The last sentence here wouldn't be needed if you bring back 1586
>> > I
>> > think. I would re-enact the rule and then decide whether a contract is
>> > an
>> > entity with a text, or a document with special properties (the former is
>> > likely far easier)
>>
>> That is correct, it is two things at once. Not doing any harm, but if
>> you prefer I could go with "A ruleset-described entity embodied in
>> text".
>
>
> I strongly prefer "an entity with a text". For instance, in this proposed
> rule alone, you say "A document can only become a contract" implying that a
> contract is a document, but a document is one entity, not two.
>
> After thinking on this more, you shouldn't use the term document either. You
> can't amend a document, after all. It's just a part of a message; you can't
> go back in time and amend the document. Better to state that text is a
> property of a contract.

It currently reads "A contract is a ruleset-defined entity embodied in
text. An entity can only
  become a contract through the appropriate ruleset defined procedures. Changes
  to the contract's text by rule defined mechanisms (including those delegated
  to the contract itself) do not change the identity of the contract."

>>
>> >>
>> >>   The properties of contracts, as defined by other rules, include the
>> >>   following:
>> >>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> 7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 AP [2]

So, um ... anyone want to opine on the status of the PM or ADoP elections?

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 7908-7921

[VJ Rada]

Quorums of 8 again ugh.

Stop voting y'all lmao.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
>
> I resolve the decision(s) to adopt proposal(s) 7908-7921 below.
>
> 
>
> [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
>  following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
>  Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!). If a
>  decision's voting period is still ongoing, I end it immediately
>  before resolving it and after resolving the previous decision.]
>
> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend fee
> ---
> 7908*  G.1.0  Silly season G.  OP [1]
> 7909*  G.1.2  No Lockout   G.  OP [1]
> 7910x  G.1.0  What is a rulekeepor G.  OP [1]
> 7911*  V.J. Rada 1.0  Infinite Money Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.
> 7912*  Alexis3.0  Election Campaigns   Alexis  1 AP [2]
> 7913*  ATMunn1.0  Cheer Up v7? ATMunn  1 AP
> 7914*  o 1.0  SFDVP [3]o   1 AP
> 7915x  CuddleBeam1.0  Terrifying Proposals Reward  CuddleBeam  1 AP
> 7916*  Aris, o, G.   1.0  Pro Pace v2  Aris1 AP
> 7917x  P.S.S. [4], o 3.0  Banking  P.S.S. [4]  1 sh.
> 7918*  P.S.S. [4]3.0  Vacant Deputisation Fix  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
> 7919x  P.S.S. [4]2.0  YSUIII. [5]  P.S.S. [4]  1 AP
> 7920x  Gaelan, Aris  1.0  The Lint Screen v2   Gaelan  1 sh.
> 7921*  o, G. 2.0  Passive Income   o   1 AP
> [1] Official Proposal, inherently pending
> [2] There is some debate over whether this was actually pended twice, each
> attempt consuming 1 AP. This value is therefore provisional.
>
> || 7908 | 7909 | 7910 | 7911 | 7912 | 7913 | 7914 | 7915 | 7916 |
> 7917 | 7918 | 7919 | 7920 | 7921 |
> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> |Alexis  | F| F| A| F| F| A| F| A | F| A
> | F| A| A| A|
> |Aris| F| F| A| F| A| F| F| A | F| A
> | F| A| F| F|
> |ATMunn  | F| P| F| F| F| F| P| F | F| F
> | F| F| A| F|
> |G.  | F| F| F| F| P| F| F| A | P| P
> | F| A| A| F|
> |Gaelan  | F| P| A| F| F| F| F| P | F| P
> | F| A| F| F|
> |nichdel | F| P| A| F| P| A| F| A | P| P
> | P| A| P| P|
> |o   | F| F| A| F| F| F| F| A | F| P
> | F| A| P| F|
> |PSS | F| F| A| F| F| F| F| A | F| F
> | F| F| A| F|
> |Trigon  | F| F| A| F| P| F| A| A | F| F
> | F| F| F| F|
> |VJ Rada | FF   | FF   | AA   | FF   | FF   | AA   | P| | P| AA   |
> FF   |  | AA   | FF   |
> |+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
> |F/A | 11/0 | 8/0  | 2/9  | 11/0 | 7/1  | 7/4  | 7/1  | 1/7 | 7/0  | 3/4
> | 10/0 | 3/6  | 3/6  | 9/1  |
> |AI  | 1.0  | 1.2  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 3.0  | 1.0  | 1.0  | 1.0 | 1.0  | 3.0
> | 3.0  | 2.0  | 1.0  | 2.0  |
> |V   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 10   | 9 | 10   | 10
> | 10   | 9| 10   | 10   |
> |Q   | 5| 5| 5| 5| 5| 5| 5| 5 | 5| 5
> | 5| 5| 5| 5|
> |P   | T| T| F| T| T| T| T| F | T| F
> | T| F| F| T|
>
>
> The full text of each adopted proposal is included below.
>
> //
> ID: 7908
> Title: Silly season
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors:
> Official Proposal
>
>
> Re-enact Rule 1650 (Silliness) with the following text:
>
>   Each Nomic Week a Player is designated the Silly Person.  The Silly Person
>   SHALL in that week, by announcement (1) designate another player, who has
> not
>   been the Silly Person in the past two weeks, to be the next week's Silly
>   Person; (2) submit a Silly Proposal.  If there is ever no Silly Person or
> the
>   Silly Person is not a player, then the next week's Silly Person is the
> first
>   player that any player publicly designates to be the next week's Silly
> Person.
>
>   A Silly Proposal is a Proposal whose sole contents are one of
>   the following:
> i) A limerick.
>ii) A rhymed poem no longer than fourteen lines. (No free
>verse!)
>   iii) A joke of no 

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

See inline notes, below:


On 10/15/2017 04:18 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:

A new contracts version is affixed.

-Aris

---
Title: Contracts v5
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s): o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, CuddleBeam, V.J Rada,
Trigon, Alexis, P.S.S.


Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any rules
created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
have been removed before its resolution.

# 1 Cleanup & Miscellaneous
# 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup

Destroy each organization.

Destroy each agency.

For the purposes of this proposal, neither pledges are nor rules are

"neither pledges nor rules are" not "neither pledges are nor rules are".

contracts. Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]

# 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
# 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations

Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").

Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").

Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").

Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").

Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").

Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").

# 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror

Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by

   * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
   * Replacing its text, entirely, with:

 {{{
 The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.

 The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:

 1. the current Floating Value, and all derived values
defined by the Rules.
 2. the list of all public classes of assets.

 }}}

Make o the Treasuror.

Amend the following rules, in order, by replacing the word
"Secretary" with the word "Treasuror" wherever it appears:

   * Rule 2487 ("Shiny Supply Level")
   * Rule 2498 ("Economic Wins")
   * Rule 2497 ("Floating Value")

# 1.2.3 General Economy Fixes/Cleanup

Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:

   {{{
   An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
   }}}

Amend rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions") by replacing its text,
entirely, with:

   {{{
   At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one
   Estate, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL put one Estate which is owned by
   Agora up for auction by announcement. Each auction ends
   seven days after it begins.

   During an auction, any player or contract may bid a number of Shinies
   by announcement, provided that the bid is higher than all
   previously-placed bids in the same auction.

   If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
   then the player or contract who placed that bid wins the auction.
   The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to emself
   by announcement, if e pays Agora the amount of the bid. The person who
To avoid any further scams, we should be overly specific and replace "if 
e pays Agora the amount of the bid" with "if e pays Agora the amount of 
the bid for the explicit and sole purpose of fulfilling this requirement".

   placed the bid SHALL see to it that this is done in a timely fashion.
   }}}

Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:

   {{{
   Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
   indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
   of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.

   }}}


# 1.3 Agency Cleanup

Repeal Rule 2467 ("Agencies")

Repeal Rule 2468 ("Superintendent")

# 1.4 Define Extricability

[Note that I do not believe this section makes any substantive changes on its
own. Because of the volume of concerns raised about restricting by announcement
conditionals, this section only contains definitions.]

Create a new power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Extricability", with the
following text:

   A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement (the
   substrate) affecting any part or aspect of the gamestate, or the
   permissibility, possibility, or effect of any action affecting such a part or
   aspect, dependent on the truth value or other state of a textual structure
   (the condition). The condition is said to be "affixed" to the substrate
   (inverse "to be conditional upon").

   A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
   inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
   unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an unreasonable
   effort to resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is inextricable
   if its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player SHOULD
   NOT use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.

   An action is said to be "subject to" a conditional if its possibility,
   permissibility, or effect (depending on context) is determined by the
   conditional. A value is said to be subject to a conditional of the state
   of the value is 

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:17 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote

> No, there definitely is a problem with giving rule permission for
> people to define arbitrary things that could be paradoxical. Both
> organizations and agencies, which this replaces, have similar
> prohibitions. This eliminates boilerplate in other places while
> simultaneously creating a nice framework for conditionality. I'll
> consider merging the two concepts though.
>

Fair. Ok.

> These amendments to this rule seem wholly unnecessary to the rest of this
> > proposal and should be at least separated out. As near as I can tell, you
> > don't actually take advantage of any of the changes here, and I'm not
> sure I
> > like them. The only one that seems to me immediately useful is possibly
> > securing it, but that definition doesn't need to be in this proposal. I
> > don't see why a proposal about contracts needs to change the mechanics of
> > proposal submission on behalf of other players.
>
> It doesn't, but I'm tweaking the acting on behalf rule so other rules
> can specify exceptions, and this is a sensible one. There was a
> problem with this once, and now seems like as good a time as any to
> fix it.
>

I don't think that this is a sensible one at all, to be honest. Why should
acting on behalf of someone to submit a proposal not make em the author? It
may well be that that's a change we want, but it shouldn't be part of this
proposal. This is the only rule in your proposal that includes an act on
behalf exception, so you really can get away with moving this all out to
another proposal.

Compare also the concept of Executor, which is used in one place. It may be
better to use that concept instead.

> The deference clause is also broken; per rule 1030, deference only works
> > where the rules have the same power. But also I'm not sure what it is
> > actually trying to do: nothing in this rule actually provides a
> mechanism to
> > act on behalf of another person; only to define what it means for a rule
> to
> > allow em to do so. Interactions of when acting on behalf is or isn't
> allowed
> > will (and should remain) determined by precedence of the rules involved.
>
> It's in the current rule, and I'd prefer not to mess with it if I
> don't have to. It was probably added for some reason.
>

Oh, so it is. Withdrawn.

What's wrong with regulations? They may well be scamable, but they
> only work as the rule creating them allows them to, so if there power
> is limited I don't see the harm. I don't really get why you're so
> upset about them. The other places they're used are to allow the
> Notary to exempt contracts from sustenance, and to put some frankly
> rather minimal throttling restrictions on contract changes. The only
> even vaguely dangerous regulations thing in the entire proposal is
> this, so if you wish I can remove this and put yet another specially
> exception in the assets rule.
>

Mostly replied in the other thread, but I would deifnitely prefer to see
this removed. What exception would be needed in the assets rule for this?
I'm confused.

> I'm confused by this. A contract is two entities, the text and some other
> > thing? The last sentence here wouldn't be needed if you bring back 1586 I
> > think. I would re-enact the rule and then decide whether a contract is an
> > entity with a text, or a document with special properties (the former is
> > likely far easier)
>
> That is correct, it is two things at once. Not doing any harm, but if
> you prefer I could go with "A ruleset-described entity embodied in
> text".
>

I strongly prefer "an entity with a text". For instance, in this proposed
rule alone, you say "A document can only become a contract" implying that a
contract is a document, but a document is one entity, not two.

After thinking on this more, you shouldn't use the term document either.
You can't amend a document, after all. It's just a part of a message; you
can't go back in time and amend the document. Better to state that text is
a property of a contract.

>
> >>
> >>   The properties of contracts, as defined by other rules, include the
> >>   following:
> >>
> >> - Parties, persons who agree to be bound by and assume powers under
> >>   the contract.
> >> - The ability to be amended or destroyed.
> >> - The ability to compel actions by their parties.
> >> - The ability to allow persons to take actions on the part of their
> >> parties.
> >> - The ability to define arbitrary classes of asset.
> >> - The ability to possess and control assets.
> >
> >
> > This paragraph is very bad; it implies that nothing else is a property
> of a
> > contract, such as its text. I don't think it actually serves any purpose.
>
> It is carefully designed to do no such thing. Use of "include" exempts
> it from the general principle "Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius".
> It serves the important purpose of giving a summary and making the
> contract rules clearer, and the 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 22:28 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Regulations are not dangerous, certainly not "very dangerous".
> Regulations only work at the power of their parent rule, and can only
> do what their parent rule says they can do. This is the first of
> several safeguards against their misuse. Admittedly, an over broad
> parent rule could do a lot of harm. However, we see no signs that they
> are likely to be used dangerously. Currently, all they do is to run
> the tournament, which isn't particularly dangerous. My contracts
> proposal would let them be used to throttle some contract actions
> within eminently reasonable bounds, and to exempt contracts from
> paying taxes, which isn't particularly dangerous either. The most
> dangerous thing they've been seriously suggested for is banking, such
> that they could used, within bounds, to control Agora's treasury. That
> needs more caution, but the proposal would have limits and would be
> promulgated by a three member commission, hopefully ensuring broad
> support. There was that it was suggested that they be used for chevron
> deference, but that proposal was quickly shouted down as overly broad
> and was never a serious proposal anyway, as confessed by the author.
> Second, regulations require agoran consent to adopt by default,
> ensuring that they can't be passed without public agreement. Third,
> proposals can always change regulations anyway, so people can get rid
> of them if they don't like them. I think there are sufficient
> safeguards in place to ensure that regulations are used safely. If you
> wish to suggest additional safeguards, I'm fairly likely to support
> them. However, I see no need to repeal an interesting system that will
> make for interesting gameplay.
>
> -Aris
>

I'm not the slightest bit convinced that they can't be abused, but I will
refrain from discussing why because if Agora is set on keeping them, no
point in revealing potential scams. I'm pretty sure there are loopholes
that could let me do silly things with them, and because they are powered,
they are very, very dangerous. If a loophole is found in a regulation, for
instance, then it can amend any rules of equal or lower power. This is what
makes them fundamentally different from the other rules-defined documents
that we have. The problem is not, inherently, with delegating rules power
away from the rules to other instruments; it's the manner in which it is
done. And I don't think there is enough compelling reason to want to do so
(especially with contracts likely to be available again soon) to sink a
bunch of energy into fix proposals.

Apart from that, they also have an overcomplicated recordkeeping system.
That's a minor beef though and easily cleaned up.

For the Notary's contract things that you proposed, it's easy enough to
regulate those with various switches or other tools. Regulations are only
one way to do it.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:57 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Why not keep the birthday tournament. It existed before regulations.
>

It is kept, in its original form as part of 2464.

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[ATMunn .]

I just finished reading this all through. I don't entirely understand all
of it, but most of it makes sense. One part that seemed a bit strange and
arbitrary is the fact that contracts always cost 1 shiny to create. Is
there a reason why this is a fixed value instead of, say, 1/20th of the
floating value?

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A new contracts version is affixed.
>
> -Aris
>
> ---
> Title: Contracts v5
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s): o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, CuddleBeam, V.J Rada,
> Trigon, Alexis, P.S.S.
>
>
> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any
> rules
> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> have been removed before its resolution.
>
> # 1 Cleanup & Miscellaneous
> # 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup
>
> Destroy each organization.
>
> Destroy each agency.
>
> For the purposes of this proposal, neither pledges are nor rules are
> contracts. Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]
>
> # 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
> # 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations
>
> Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").
>
> Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").
>
> Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").
>
> Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").
>
> Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").
>
> Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").
>
> # 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror
>
> Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by
>
>   * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
>   * Replacing its text, entirely, with:
>
> {{{
> The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.
>
> The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:
>
> 1. the current Floating Value, and all derived values
>defined by the Rules.
> 2. the list of all public classes of assets.
>
> }}}
>
> Make o the Treasuror.
>
> Amend the following rules, in order, by replacing the word
> "Secretary" with the word "Treasuror" wherever it appears:
>
>   * Rule 2487 ("Shiny Supply Level")
>   * Rule 2498 ("Economic Wins")
>   * Rule 2497 ("Floating Value")
>
> # 1.2.3 General Economy Fixes/Cleanup
>
> Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:
>
>   {{{
>   An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
>   }}}
>
> Amend rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions") by replacing its text,
> entirely, with:
>
>   {{{
>   At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one
>   Estate, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL put one Estate which is owned by
>   Agora up for auction by announcement. Each auction ends
>   seven days after it begins.
>
>   During an auction, any player or contract may bid a number of Shinies
>   by announcement, provided that the bid is higher than all
>   previously-placed bids in the same auction.
>
>   If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
>   then the player or contract who placed that bid wins the auction.
>   The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to emself
>   by announcement, if e pays Agora the amount of the bid. The person
> who
>   placed the bid SHALL see to it that this is done in a timely fashion.
>   }}}
>
> Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:
>
>   {{{
>   Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
>   indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
>   of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.
>
>   }}}
>
>
> # 1.3 Agency Cleanup
>
> Repeal Rule 2467 ("Agencies")
>
> Repeal Rule 2468 ("Superintendent")
>
> # 1.4 Define Extricability
>
> [Note that I do not believe this section makes any substantive changes on
> its
> own. Because of the volume of concerns raised about restricting by
> announcement
> conditionals, this section only contains definitions.]
>
> Create a new power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Extricability",
> with the
> following text:
>
>   A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement
> (the
>   substrate) affecting any part or aspect of the gamestate, or the
>   permissibility, possibility, or effect of any action affecting such a
> part or
>   aspect, dependent on the truth value or other state of a textual
> structure
>   (the condition). The condition is said to be "affixed" to the substrate
>   (inverse "to be conditional upon").
>
>   A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
>   inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
>   unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an
> unreasonable
>   effort to resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is
> inextricable
>   if its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player
> SHOULD
>   NOT use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.
>
>   An action is 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3575 judged TRUE

[VJ Rada]

So I'm paying someone a 10% commission to do what I tell them with my
own money. Pretty good plan imo.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 7:52 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Only if I reregister immediately. I'm basically trying to not have
> Alexis steal all my money again while still not tampering with my
> agency.
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> I claim the reward of 1 shiny for this report. I pledge to transfer
>>> all shinies I receive before my next deregistration to the first
>>> non-Alexis person who pledges that they will use 90% of the shinies I
>>> transfer em in accordance with the instructions of myself acting from
>>> the email address vijar...@gmail.com.
>>>
>>
>> I hope you're not planning to deregister any time soon?
>>
>> -Aris
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3575 judged TRUE

[VJ Rada]

Only if I reregister immediately. I'm basically trying to not have
Alexis steal all my money again while still not tampering with my
agency.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> I claim the reward of 1 shiny for this report. I pledge to transfer
>> all shinies I receive before my next deregistration to the first
>> non-Alexis person who pledges that they will use 90% of the shinies I
>> transfer em in accordance with the instructions of myself acting from
>> the email address vijar...@gmail.com.
>>
>
> I hope you're not planning to deregister any time soon?
>
> -Aris



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 00:07 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Another worrying thought: if we a judge decides that the later
> definition should inform what the proposal considers to be a
> “contract,” and there’s some bug with the “contract-as-textual-
> documents” thing that causes rules to be considered contracts…

It crosses my mind that the main advantage of banning changes to
multiple rules in the same proposal without stating which order the
changes happen in is precisely so that "repeal all rules" won't work,
even if you do it by mistake. In that case, perhaps we should make it
clearer that that's how the restriction works (as there's a perverse-
ish reading of rule 105 that it imposes an order on attempted
simultaneous changes, rather than halting changes with no order
specified.

Proto:

In rule 105, replace:
{{{
  A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
  Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
}}}
with
{{{
  A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
  It is not possible to for multiple rule changes to occur
  simultaneously; any attempt to cause multiple rule changes
  without a statement of the order in which those changes should
  be made will have no effect and none of the changes will occur.
  Such a statement can be implicit in the order in which the
  changes are specified, so long as there is only one plausible
  possibility for the ordering.
}}}
[I considered an MMI IMPOSSIBLE, but I think the natural-language
phrase works better in case the rules somehow change as a consequence
of something other than an action.]

Note that this restriction doesn't block Ruleset ratification; it
attempts to but doesn't have enough Power.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Aris Merchant]

A new contracts version is affixed.

-Aris

---
Title: Contracts v5
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s): o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, CuddleBeam, V.J Rada,
Trigon, Alexis, P.S.S.


Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any rules
created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
have been removed before its resolution.

# 1 Cleanup & Miscellaneous
# 1.1 Gamestate Cleanup

Destroy each organization.

Destroy each agency.

For the purposes of this proposal, neither pledges are nor rules are
contracts. Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]

# 1.2 Organization, Secretary, and Economic Cleanup
# 1.2.1 Repeal Organizations

Repeal rule 2459 ("Organizations").

Repeal rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations").

Repeal rule 2460 ("Organizational Restructuring").

Repeal rule 2457 ("Lockout").

Repeal rule 2458 ("Invoking Lockout").

Repeal rule 2462 ("Bankruptcy").

# 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror

Amend rule 2456 ("The Secretary") by

  * Changing its title to "The Treasuror", then by
  * Replacing its text, entirely, with:

{{{
The Treasuror is an office, and the recordkeepor of Shinies.

The Treasuror's weekly report also includes:

1. the current Floating Value, and all derived values
   defined by the Rules.
2. the list of all public classes of assets.

}}}

Make o the Treasuror.

Amend the following rules, in order, by replacing the word
"Secretary" with the word "Treasuror" wherever it appears:

  * Rule 2487 ("Shiny Supply Level")
  * Rule 2498 ("Economic Wins")
  * Rule 2497 ("Floating Value")

# 1.2.3 General Economy Fixes/Cleanup

Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:

  {{{
  An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
  }}}

Amend rule 2491 ("Estate Auctions") by replacing its text,
entirely, with:

  {{{
  At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one
  Estate, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL put one Estate which is owned by
  Agora up for auction by announcement. Each auction ends
  seven days after it begins.

  During an auction, any player or contract may bid a number of Shinies
  by announcement, provided that the bid is higher than all
  previously-placed bids in the same auction.

  If, at the end of the auction, there is a single highest bid,
  then the player or contract who placed that bid wins the auction.
  The winner CAN cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to emself
  by announcement, if e pays Agora the amount of the bid. The person who
  placed the bid SHALL see to it that this is done in a timely fashion.
  }}}

Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:

  {{{
  Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
  indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
  of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.

  }}}


# 1.3 Agency Cleanup

Repeal Rule 2467 ("Agencies")

Repeal Rule 2468 ("Superintendent")

# 1.4 Define Extricability

[Note that I do not believe this section makes any substantive changes on its
own. Because of the volume of concerns raised about restricting by announcement
conditionals, this section only contains definitions.]

Create a new power 3.0 rule entitled "Conditionals and Extricability", with the
following text:

  A conditional is any textual structure that attempts to make a statement (the
  substrate) affecting any part or aspect of the gamestate, or the
  permissibility, possibility, or effect of any action affecting such a part or
  aspect, dependent on the truth value or other state of a textual structure
  (the condition). The condition is said to be "affixed" to the substrate
  (inverse "to be conditional upon").

  A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
  inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
  unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an unreasonable
  effort to resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is inextricable
  if its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player SHOULD
  NOT use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.

  An action is said to be "subject to" a conditional if its possibility,
  permissibility, or effect (depending on context) is determined by the
  conditional. A value is said to be subject to a conditional of the state
  of the value is determined by the conditional.

Create a new power 3.0 rule entitled "Determinacy", with the following text:

  If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or paradox)
  from information reasonably available, or if it alternates indefinitely
  between values, then the value is considered to be indeterminate, otherwise
  it is determinate.

Amend Rule 1023, "Common Definitions", by (please note that these 

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Gaelan Steele]

Another worrying thought: if we a judge decides that the later definition 
should inform what the proposal considers to be a “contract,” and there’s some 
bug with the “contract-as-textual-documents” thing that causes rules to be 
considered contracts…

Gaelan

> On Oct 14, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 00:29 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> 
>> A lot of feedback here. Much of it is typo corrections, but not all of
>> it.
>> 
>>> Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]
>> "Contract" is not currently rules-defined, so this attempts to destroy
>> real-life contracts (thus creating a legal fiction that they don't
>> exist). Given that Agora used to be capable of recognising those, this
>> may be a useful precaution to take anyway; I just find the implications
>> interesting.
> 
> Until we've defined "contract" (later in the proposal), is a pledge a type
> of contract that would be destroyed by this clause?  We've said several
> times that a pledge is a "contract with Agora" and it meets the definition
> of an Agreement, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Semi-final draft: Contracts v3

[Gaelan Steele]

[don’t know if anybody else shares this sentiment] Please use mail-archive 
instead of the built-in mailman archive. I have to dig up my mailman password 
every time, and it’s a pain.

Gaelan

P.S. omd, if you’re listening: if possible, please remove the requirement for 
logging in to view archives.

> On Oct 14, 2017, at 4:54 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> We used to have a rule that made this sort of thing not necessary (Definition 
> and Continuity of Entities). Reenacting that as the first step of this 
> proposal may be a cleaner way to solve this. It was repealed by G. on the 
> basis that it was all common-sense legal precedent; recent jurisprudence 
> indicates it may not have been after all. 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-January/010594.html
>  
> 
>  contains a copy of the rule shortly before its repeal.
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3575 judged TRUE

[Aris Merchant]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> I claim the reward of 1 shiny for this report. I pledge to transfer
> all shinies I receive before my next deregistration to the first
> non-Alexis person who pledges that they will use 90% of the shinies I
> transfer em in accordance with the instructions of myself acting from
> the email address vijar...@gmail.com.
>

I hope you're not planning to deregister any time soon?

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: A few cleanups

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:


Amend Rule 105, bullet 2 to read "When a rule
 is repealed, it ceases to be a


I'm not sure the HLR is good for pasting directly into email.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: can we can't we can we can't we

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


If the majority of valid ballots (valid at the end of the voting
period) cast in the decision to adopt this proposal specify "OPTION A"
along with their vote, then amend Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?) by
appending the following paragraph:

 If a Rule states that an entity CAN, MAY, or SHALL perform an
 action, but does not explicitly specify a method for performing
 it, then "CAN by announcement" is specified by that Rule as a
 method for performing that action (subject to any conditions
 included with the CAN, MAY, or SHALL).


This seems like it will may horribly if there's a generally applicable 
method in a _different_ rule.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Draft: Spending Fix

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


So overall, I'm a bit concerned with the separate uses of "pay" and "spend"
given that they now function differently and spend includes destruction.  For
example, if someone says "I pay 1 AP to " then it would technically
fail, because "pay" is defined as a transfer and AP can't be transferred.
This is messy and confusing - we know what is meant, but this could lead
to people calling this out and lots of errors, and inconsistencies (i.e.
most times we let it go, but if someone has a game reason for invalidating
someone else's action, they might call it out).


(1) Make "spend" a synonym for "pay to Agora".
(2) Make destructible fixed assets transferable, but to Agora only, 
immediately after which they are destroyed.


Greetings,
Ørjan.