Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 04:25 +, James Cook wrote: > I'm happy to try being on a court. How does weekend vs. day court > work? I have the most time on weekends, but if a case comes in on the > weekend I might end up dealing with it during the week depending on > circumstances. So really I don't mind getting a CFJ assigned at any > time during the week, if others don't mind me taking advantage of the > 7 days available. It's not related to time of week, it's related to case load. Day court judges get most of the cases, weekend court judges get occasional cases now and then. (This is all Arbitor's discretion, thus isn't precisely defined, and is a system set up by the Arbitor rather than an inherent part of the rules.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
A reminder that my CFJ "the Lost and Found department owns no more than 87 Coins." is still unassigned [0] [0] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-May/040375.html
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8178-8179
I vote as follows: On May 27, 2019, at 4:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > IDAuthor(s) AITitle > --- > 8178 Trigon 3.0 n’t AGAINST. Or ain’tn’t, if you prefer. I don’t generally mind contractions, but adding more ways to say the same thing seems unnecessary given the number of synonyms that are already defined. > 8179 D Margaux, Aris 2.0 Intent is Important (v1.1) AGAINST. Been the Referee. Would have hated this - and I wrote a fair number of referee calls that invoked intent. If you want Refereeing subjected to a lot of CFJs and generally bogged down, impose a subjective constraint on it like this as a matter of law rather than a matter of policy. At least as things are now, if someone’s refereeing unfairly, we can solve it by deposing them. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Score Voting
I don’t find a computer simulation of something as subjective as satisfaction to be very convincing, even given the relative soundness of the paper itself. I’d be against score voting _specifically because_ it appears to encourage - and indeed work best with - strategic rather than honest voting. That said, I am extremely glad to have provoked more discussion about voting methods! Thank you for posting this, and I hope you make time to submit a proposal. -o > On May 26, 2019, at 6:43 PM, Bernie Brackett wrote: > > If everyone votes strategically, then it's still an okay voting system. The > source for proof that it's the best is this image: > Which I found is from this: > https://www.electionscience.org/library/tactical-voting-basics/ despite me > first finding it here: https://ncase.me/ballot/ > > On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 3:10 PM omd wrote: > >> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:20 PM Bernie Brackett >> wrote: >>> it feels like there's a discussion going on involving what exactly single >>> transferable vote means, so I feel like I should bring up that Score >> Voting >>> has mathematically been proven to be better. Is there any reason not to >>> switch to it? >> >> What proof are you referring to? Instant runoff certainly has its >> downsides, but so does score voting. For example, per Wikipedia [1], >> the optimal strategy for score voting is usually to give each option >> either the minimum or maximum score, which then disadvantages voters >> who score the options based on their actual relative preferences. >> >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Score_voting#Strategy >> > <49D4EA26-E141-4EA6-8562-24805E6341C7.png> signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
DIS: Weekend court
> It's not related to time of week, it's related to case load. Day court > judges get most of the cases, weekend court judges get occasional cases > now and then. (This is all Arbitor's discretion, thus isn't precisely > defined, and is a system set up by the Arbitor rather than an inherent > part of the rules.) In that case maybe I'd better start with the weekend court and see how it goes. H. Arbitor, please add me to the list.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
> Hmm. I admit that I am not sure I follow this. But I think we are in > agreement about the ultimate outcome? Yes, I agree that you own no blots. I'm curious to see how H. Judge G. rules on your original CFJ reintroduced by Aris.
Re: DIS: [Draft] Refactoring IRV
On May 25, 2019, at 5:24 PM, James Cook wrote: > Some bugs: > > * R955 specifies invalid options are eliminated before the process > starts; it's probably good to keep that. > > * The voting strength of each ballot should matter. > > * When determining whether an option has a majority, votes for PRESENT > or listing only options that have been eliminated shouldn't count. Thank you. Given how foundational voting is to Agora’s integrity, I am deliberately taking this slowly to give time for this kind of feedback. I think anyone rushing to pass changes to the voting system should be viewed with suspicion, obviously. I had not intended to remove the language specifying that a ballot of voting strength of N is handled as if it were N identical ballots. I suspect that there may be differences between that (current) interpretation, and your interpretation below that the sum of the voting strengths determines the ordering of candidates, but I haven’t done the math to prove it. Good catch on PRESENT and on eliminating options which have become invalid. Thanks also to omd for pointing out must/MUST confusion and the lack of a “by announcement” clause or equivalent. > 2. For an instant runoff decision, the vote collector determines the > outcome by the following process. During the process, an option's > first-place voting strength is defined to be the sum of the voting > strengths of the ballots that list that option before all other > options that have not been eliminated, and the remaining voting > strength is defined to be the sum of voting strengths of valid > ballots in this decision that list at least one option that has not > been eliminated. It might be worth making the modal (or at least modal-ish) nature of these predicates explicit by adding a few “at a specific point in time”s or similar language, but I like the overall structure here of pulling the definitions out front so that they can be applied at various points throughout the ballot counting procedure. > a) First, all entities that are part of a valid vote, but were not a > valid option at the end of the voting period, or are disqualified > by the rule providing for the decision, are eliminated. Probably want to use “ballot” or “vote” consistently, rather than alternating. > b) If no ballot lists an option that hasn't been eliminated, the > outcome is null. A useful addition. > c) Otherwise, the vote collector successively eliminates options > until some option's first-place voting strength is more than half > the remaining voting strength, and that remaining option is the > outcome of the decision. For an option to be eliminated, its first > place voting strength must be less than or equal to the first > place voting strengths of all other options, and if it is equal to > another's, the vote collector must specify which option was > eliminated in the announcement of the decision's resolution. omd’s must/MUST observation applies here, too. Perhaps the following? c) Otherwise, the vote collector MUST successive eliminate options until some option's first-place voting strength is more than half the remaining voting strength. The outcome of the decision is that option. When eliminating an option, the vote collector MUST eliminate an option whose first place voting strength is less than or equal to the first place voting strength of all other options. If the eliminated option's first place voting strength is equal to another options', then the vote collector MUST additionally specify which option they eliminated in the announcement of the decision's resolution. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 9:25 PM James Cook wrote: > I would be honoured, but would it be more appropriate to assign this > case to someone who hasn't already shown a preference for one outcome? > I invite whoever judges the case to refer to my arguments if they seem > helpful. Unless you have a direct material conflict of interest, this generally isn't a reason not to judge. We're too small a community, everyone ends up having opinions, and we don't want to stifle discussion by saying "you expressed an earlier opinion on this, no judging for you!" On the subject of community size - welcome back, o and omd!!! -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8177
Oops, don't mind me - I see the parallel attempts now this is sooo confusing... On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 11:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > CoE: My conditional vote quoted below required the report > ratification to go through before the voting period ended (I mis-read > D. Margaux's ratification intent as being without objection, under > which it could have been completed in time). I think this makes the > votes come out as a REJECTED. > > "I change my vote on 8177 to conditional: FOR if all of the switches > for which either the Astronomor or Clork are recordkeepor are at their > default value; AGAINST otherwise. > > On behalf of Telnaior, Telnaior changes er vote on 8177 to > conditional: FOR if all of the switches for which either the > Astronomor or Clork are > recordkeepor are at their default value; AGAINST otherwise." > > On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 7:39 PM D. Margaux wrote: > > > > I resolve the Agoran decision of whether to adopt the below proposal(s) as > > follows: > > > > Result IDAuthor(s) AITitle > > --- > > ADO 8177 Aris, [1] 3.0 Side-Game Suspension Act (v3) > > > > [1] D. Margaux, G. > > > > Proposal 8177 > > === > > FOR: D. Margaux, L, Murphy, Falsifian, VJ Rada, G., Telnaior > > PRESENT: ATMunn, omd > > AGAINST: > > Ballots: 9 (quorum 3) > > AI (F/A): 21/0 (all voters have 3 strength) > > Outcome: ADOPTED > > > > The full text of the aforementioned adopted proposal(s) is included below. > > > > // > > ID: 8177 > > Title: Side-Game Suspension Act (v3) > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: D Margaux, G. > > > > Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Side-Game Suspension", with the > > following text: > > > > > > 1. The Spaaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591, 2592, > > 2593 and 2594. > > > > 2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536, 2537, > > 2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543. > > > > 3. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Spaaace Rules are suspended > > and > > have no force or effect until Spaaace is Revived. > > > > 4. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Politics Rules are > > suspended and have no force or effect until Politics is Revived. > > > > 5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has already > > been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office > > of Astronomor. > > > > 6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics has already > > been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of > > Clork. > > > > 7. If Politics and Spaaace have both been Revived, then any player CAN > > cause > > this Rule to repeal itself with Notice. > > > > 8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When this Rule is > > triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics Rules > > are > > automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless > > Politics has been > > Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in ascending > > numerical order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this Rule is > > automatically repealed.
