Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Karmic thoughts

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, ATMunn . wrote:
> The reason why they're called Medals of Honour is because in order to declare 
> yourself eligible for one, you have to have not received any cards in the 
> last 
> month, and you can't have negative Karma.

Since karma is 0-sum, for there to be any positive karma, there will
have to be negative.  I wouldn't want to discourage someone from giving away
their own karma on occasion.  Might I suggest a lower cutoff (if eta/gamma is
too low, maybe -3 to -4 karma or something?) I'd be happy to limit my randomness
to people above whatever the limit is, if it's not at 0.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Karmic thoughts

[ATMunn .]

Overall I like the idea; however, my only concern is with my new Medals of
Honour proposal I'm working on (and planning on publishing tonight).

If you haven't read the proto, basically it says that in the first week of
every month, anyone can declare emself to be eligible for a Medal of
Honour. After that, then there's an Agoran Decision on which of the
eligible players will receive a Medal of Honour. If any player ever gets 6
Medals of Honour, e can win the game.

The reason why they're called Medals of Honour is because in order to
declare yourself eligible for one, you have to have not received any cards
in the last month, and you can't have negative Karma.

I feel that this might sort of conflict with this idea of randomly deciding
who to lose Karma each week, as it's basically randomly denying someone of
the possibility of getting a medal. However, that issue might only be a
problem right now, since most people are at 0 karma, and so only need to
lose 1 to go negative. Over time, as you said, everybody's karma will
probably even out and (roughly) reflect everyone's behavior. So it's
probably fine.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> So, as Herald, I feel a duty to encourage Karma by posting Notices of
> Honour at the specified rate (weekly).  The last two weeks, I've felt
> good about the positive karma, but I was stretching for "negative"
> reasons to ding people and it made it seem I was more annoyed at a
> negative thing than I actually was.  And making myself the loser (if I'm
> the leading karmainator) is not sustainable.
>
> So, my idea, to encourage the positive, is that unless I see behavior
> that I think *really* deserves censure, I'm going to choose the loser
> randomly each week and choose the gainer based on positive play.  (Not
> a pledge because I want to be flexible if it doesn't work out).
>
> Musing thought:  If everyone does likewise (and frequently enough), the
> scores will (on average, over time) reflect everyone's relative positive
> contribution without focusing on the negative.
>
> Comments welcome...
>
>
>
>

DIS: Draft: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 7930

[Aris Merchant]

Does this look right to everyone?

-Aris

---
Revised proposal pool (effective at the time of my last report):

IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
---
pp1   o 2.0  Faster Auctions
pp2*  G.1.7  Appeals improvements

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
---
7930*  G.1.7  Appeals improvements  G.  1 sh.

Proposals distributed this week:

ID Author(s)  AI   TitlePender  Pend fee
---
7922*  Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act  Alexis  1 AP
7923*  Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt  Gaelan  1 AP
7924*  Aris, [1]  3.0  Contracts v8 Aris1 sh.
7925*  Aris, Alexis   3.0  Safety Regulations v2Aris1 AP
7926*  Alexis 3.0  Deregulation Alexis  1 AP
7927*  V.J. Rada, G.  2.0  Estate Auction Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.
7928*  G. 3.0  no we can't  G.  1 AP
7929*  V.J. Rada  1.0  Consumerism  V.J. Rada   1 sh.
7930*  G. 1.7  Appeals improvements G.  1 sh.

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
 prior to the first round of counting.

  3. For a first-past-the-post decision, the outcome is whichever
 option received the highest total strength of valid ballots. In
 case of a tie, the vote collector CAN and must, in the
 announcement of the 

Re: DIS: Silly Proposal Query

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:

About Silly proposals I am vexed:Of the rule's intention I am perplexed;
Ought the proposal's mood be most merry,
Or it's meaning and tone be contrary?


The Rule's a blank slate
With no preconceived notions
Whatever you like


Despite your reply
for autumny Silliness
haikus do not count

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Silly Proposal Query

[Josh T]

Alas, wordplay in Japanese does not
invoke quite the same type of afterthought.

天火狐

On 16 October 2017 at 12:30, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > About Silly proposals I am vexed:Of the rule's intention I am perplexed;
> > Ought the proposal's mood be most merry,
> > Or it's meaning and tone be contrary?
>
> The Rule's a blank slate
> With no preconceived notions
> Whatever you like
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Silly Proposal Query

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
> About Silly proposals I am vexed:Of the rule's intention I am perplexed;
> Ought the proposal's mood be most merry,
> Or it's meaning and tone be contrary?

The Rule's a blank slate
With no preconceived notions
Whatever you like

Re: DIS: Silly Proposal Query

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 10:49 -0400, Josh T wrote:
> About Silly proposals I am vexed:
> Of the rule's intention I am perplexed;
> Ought the proposal's mood be most merry,
> Or it's meaning and tone be contrary?
> 
> 天火狐

I suspect that Rule 1789 was created by a Silly Proposal (on the "truly
hideous pun" clause), so that might give you an example of the sort of
things that were expected. But of course, this is Agora, so I assume
that the only requirements on the proposal are those stated in the
text.

(I admit I was kind-of expecting a pun that only worked in Japanese,
which would neatly obey the letter of the rule and yet make it hard to
subsequently translate any created rule into English.)

-- 
ais523

DIS: Silly Proposal Query

[Josh T]

About Silly proposals I am vexed:
Of the rule's intention I am perplexed;
Ought the proposal's mood be most merry,
Or it's meaning and tone be contrary?

天火狐

Re: DIS: Important note to Assessor and Promotor

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:21 PM, 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?
> >
> >
> 
> If I understand correctly, you're asking me not to distribute anything
> more. However, I haven't distributed your appeal reform proposal. If I
> don't, then someone may point a finger at me for being late, again.

If you initiated the missing one in the next 24 hours or so, the Assessor could 
wait until its voting period is done before resolving the whole current batch,
and then do 7922 after that whole batch.  And eh, if votes on my appeal reform
get screwed up somehow due to 7922 being adopted, it's just a minor bugfix and
I can re-propose (I'd be worried about it happening to this whole recent batch
though, that's the main thing).

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

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 20:20 -0700, 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.
> 
> not-technically-a-CoE: The ID numbers listed in the summary at the
> start and in the proposal descriptions later on are inconsistent with
> each other. I'm not immediately clear on what the consequences of this
> are.

Is the confusion enough that it's unclear what "the matter to be decided"
is?  If so a CoE would invalidate the initiation (R107).  (my feeling
is that the Titles line up and no number is actually duplicated in
the wrong place, so it's clear enough).

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

[ATMunn .]

I'm confused at what's going on here.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 2:05 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 02:04 Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I recommend a green card. Given the preceding a-d discussion, this was
>> clearly an accidental omission and not an attempt at fraud.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:02 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> > I point a finger at myself for not stating that the document was wrong.
>>
>
> Since the intent was ineffective, I don't believe there was a rules
> violaiton.
>

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

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 09:37 -0400, ATMunn . wrote:
> Wait, you're not a player, right? Just a watcher?
> 
> Do the rules just say that persons can initiate CFJs instead of just
> players?

Nonplayers don't have to spend AP or shinies for a CFJ (they don't have
any), so they actually have more ability to initiate them than players.

Given how often registration status becomes uncertain, allowing people
to initiate a CFJ regardless of whether they're registered seems like a
useful safeguard.

-- 
ais523

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

[ATMunn .]

Wait, you're not a player, right? Just a watcher?

Do the rules just say that persons can initiate CFJs instead of just
players?

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> 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 

Re: DIS: eval()

[ATMunn .]

It's an interesting idea, but as other players have said, it could be quite
scammable.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:45 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

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

[Alexis Hunt]

Ratification takes effect relative to the publication of the document,
however. The context doesn't matter; if this document were ratified, then
it would be treated as true and correct; that is, it would be treated as if
it was a complete list of the proposal pool at the time of its publication.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017, 04:11 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, there were not as of the effective date of the proposal being revised.
>
>
> On 10/16/2017 12:04 AM, 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,
> >  > > 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 

DIS: Re: BUS: E•MO•TION

[ATMunn .]

Oh, did I forget to capitalize that somewhere? Oops.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:18 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

[ATMunn .]

Alright, thanks. I guess I should have more confidence in myself.

As for the victory elections thing, I might actually go ahead and repeal
that when I actually post the proposal.

As for when I'll post it, I'll probably post it later today, if nobody else
says anything.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:31 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> 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
> >> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: E•MO•TION

[VJ Rada]

I checked it doesn't. Appears 17 times all correctly capitalized. At
least in the last ruleset.

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 20:40 -0700, 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”.
>
> If it appears more than once, you'll need to explicitly state an order
> in which the changes occur (first to last numerically, for example).
>
> --
> ais523



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 20:20 -0700, 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.

not-technically-a-CoE: The ID numbers listed in the summary at the
start and in the proposal descriptions later on are inconsistent with
each other. I'm not immediately clear on what the consequences of this
are.

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: E•MO•TION

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 20:40 -0700, 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”.

If it appears more than once, you'll need to explicitly state an order
in which the changes occur (first to last numerically, for example).

-- 
ais523

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

[Alexis Hunt]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 02:04 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I recommend a green card. Given the preceding a-d discussion, this was
> clearly an accidental omission and not an attempt at fraud.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:02 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > I point a finger at myself for not stating that the document was wrong.
>

Since the intent was ineffective, I don't believe there was a rules
violaiton.

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

[Aris Merchant]

I recommend a green card. Given the preceding a-d discussion, this was
clearly an accidental omission and not an attempt at fraud.

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:02 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> I point a finger at myself for not stating that the document was wrong.
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 3:06 PM, 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
>>
>> ADoP:
>> Three first-preference ATMunn votes, 2 VJ Rada votes and 1 Alexis
>> vote. After the Alexis vote goes, ATMunn wins.
>> ATMunn: ATMunn
>> VJ Rada: {ATMunn, VJ Rada}
>> G. {ATMunn, VJ Rada}
>> o.: VJ Rada
>> PSS: VJ Rada
>> Alexis: I vote conditionally as follows. If the proposal Campaign
>> Proposals has been distributed and, if the voting period for its
>> adoption were ended now and the quorum on that decision were 0, it
>> would be adopted, then I vote {myself, 天火狐, Gaelan, Quazie].
>> Otherwise, if any player's current valid ballot includes themselves, I
>> endorse the first such player to have submitted a ballot on this
>> decision. Otherwise, I vote for the empty list.
>> Resolved as: Alexis
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Important note to Assessor and Promotor

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:21 PM, 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?
>
>

If I understand correctly, you're asking me not to distribute anything
more. However, I haven't distributed your appeal reform proposal. If I
don't, then someone may point a finger at me for being late, again.

-Aris