[attn: promotor again] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
I submit this proposal: {
Title: Calls with Memoranda
AI: 2
Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis
Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {
An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a judicial case,
specifying a valid judgement for that case. Officers SHOULD only assign
Administrative Opinions to cases with which eir office is primarily concerned.
The Arbitor SHOULD record Administrative Opinions along with case judgements.
An officer who has published an Administrative Opinion for an unassigned case
may, without objection, Administratively Close a case, causing em to become the
judge for the case and eir Administrative Opinion to become the judgment for
the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge to a case while proceedings to
Administratively Close it are ongoing.
}
}
[This is intended to be used in two ways:
1) As a mechanism for officers to record uncontroversial rulings as they come
up: If someone does something weird, the officer can call the CFJ, issue an
Opinion, and move to Administratively Close in the same message. In this case,
this basically is a memorandum that gets recorded in the CFJ log.
2) As a mechanism to uncontroversially resolve CFJs initiated by someone else.
Of course, if there’s any controversy, someone can object and we go through the
normal CFJ system.]
Gaelan
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:24 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> Here’s another proto: {
> Title: Calls with Memoranda
> AI: 2
> Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis
>
> Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {
> An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a judicial case,
> specifying a valid judgement for that case. Officers SHALL [SHOULD?] only
> assign Administrative Opinions to cases with which eir office is primarily
> concerned. An officer who has published an Administrative Opinion for an
> unassigned case may, without objection, Administratively Close a case,
> causing em to become the judge for the case and eir Administrative Opinion to
> become the judgment for the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge to a
> case while proceedings to Administratively Close it are ongoing.
> }
> }
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:01 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:59, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
>> mailto:agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>>
>> wrote:
>>> I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we
>>> need is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation
>>> unless a CfJ decides otherwise.
>>>
>>> Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either
>>> as an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because it becomes a
>>> dispute: I create the proposal {
>>> Title: Calls for Memoranda
>>> AI: 2
>>> Co-authors: Aris, G
>>>
>>> Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor
>>> SHOULD assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its
>>> content.” after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time
>>> such that all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to
>>> judge.”
>>> }
>>>
>>> Maybe if we wanted to get fancy, we could implement some way for the
>>> officer to assign themselves, so they could note their interpretation in
>>> the CfJ log simply by calling and resolving the CfJ in the same message.
>>>
>>> Gaelan
>>
>> I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally
>> *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not
>> preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal
>> mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a
>> separate path for administrative interpretations.
>>
>> -Alexis
>
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 3:31 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 2/9/2020 3:01 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally > > *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not > > preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal > > mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a > > separate path for administrative interpretations. > > Skeletal outline for simple memorandum: > > * A valid memorandum is considered "game custom" for the purposes of > interpreting law; > > * a memorandum is invalid only if a CFJ finds it is arbitrary and > capricious or reckless in its disregard for the rules text; > > * elected offices only; > > * a non-interim officeholder CAN issue a memorandum w/2 Agoran Consent; > > * valid memoranda are tracked with the officer's most frequent report; > > * when an new person is elected to an office, all previous memoranda for > that office become invalid; > > * during the nomination period of an election, a nominee can publish a > document listing memoranda for the office. If e is elected, those > memoranda become valid; They should really be regulations. -Aris > >
DIS: Inquiry (attn. Assessor)
H. Assessor, the Promotorial Proposal Office is tentatively holding off on distributing the next round of proposals until the current round is resolved. In particular, we believe that it would be advantageous for the Proposal 8320 to be resolved so that unassigned proposals can be referred to appropriate ministries. However, we understand that you may be delayed in resolving this round of proposals due to the recent changes to the structure of the Agoran legislature. We therefore wish to inquire as to when the current round of proposals might be resolved. Sincerely, Aris Promotor of Agora Nomic
DIS: Re: BUS: [attn Promotor] Proposals: Clarify quorum
On 2/10/20 10:33 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > If the author's proposal "Clarify quorum (option 2)" has been or > would be adopted with a greater or equal proportion of support, then > this proposal has no effect. Otherwise: This should probably say "(option 1)" instead of "(option 2)" or I don't think this proposal ever does anything. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto] Standard Model of Agoran Economics
Proto-Proposal: Standard Model of Agoran Economics Thought of a couple things this morning: * Judging should earn you Truth coins. (Truthiness?) * Could do with more things to spend coins on, besides zombies and wins. Question is, what would that be? I was going to suggest revisiting the old Extra Votes model, but zombies already have that ground covered (sort of, there's no guarantee how often zombies will become/remain available).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
twg wrote: G. wrote: On 2/10/2020 3:09 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Murphy wrote: Alexis wrote: I intend, with 2 Support, to initiate an election for each of the following offices: * Assessor, as I'm dissatisfied with the sparse content of resolutions; * Notary, as it is a brand new office; * Rulekeepor, as it is interim; and * Prime Minister, as it is interim. I support each of the last three. For each of the last three, I support and do so. Note the "provided..." bit in R2154: A player CAN initiate an election for a specified elected office: a) with 2 support, if either the office is interim or the most recent election for that office was resolved more than 90 days prior, and provided that the initiator becomes a candidate in the same message. Oh, good point. In that case I guess I supported but didn't do so. Yeah, that tripped me up too. I think the database is fixed to reflect that G. initiated PM and e and Alexis are candidates (reasonably clear from context that all those actions pertained to PM) but the others haven't been initiated.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] February zombie auction status
twg wrote:
Gaelan wrote:
Crap, Jason’s bid came in as I was writing this message. I point my
finger at myself for violating rule 2550/1: {A person SHALL NOT bid on
an Auction if it would be impossible for em to pay that amount at the
conclusion of the Auction.}
Unless I'm misreading this, it's perfectly possible that you might pay
52 coins at the end of the auction. For example, Murphy might give you
the extra coins you need.
I declare this Finger Pointing to be Shenanigans.
Proto: Clarify overbidding
Amend Rule 2550 (Bidding) by replacing this text:
A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for
em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the Auction.
with this text:
A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if e does not own enough of
the Auction's currency to pay the amount specified in the bid, and
the bid does not clearly state that e does not.
[Replaces future basis with present basis, also makes it legal to bid
beyond your current holdings if you label it as such; others then know
to consider whether you're reasonably likely to acquire the rest of the
needed funds by auction end.]
Also, R2551 contains "the a list" but I think someone may have already
cleaned that one?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
G. wrote: > On 2/10/2020 3:09 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Murphy wrote: > >> Alexis wrote: > >> > >>> I intend, with 2 Support, to initiate an election for each of the > >>> following offices: > >>> > >>> * Assessor, as I'm dissatisfied with the sparse content of resolutions; > >>> * Notary, as it is a brand new office; > >>> * Rulekeepor, as it is interim; and > >>> * Prime Minister, as it is interim. > >> > >> I support each of the last three. > > > > For each of the last three, I support and do so. > > > > Note the "provided..." bit in R2154: > > > > A player CAN initiate an election for a specified elected office: > > > > a) with 2 support, if either the office is interim or the most > >recent election for that office was resolved more than 90 days > >prior, and provided that the initiator becomes a candidate in > >the same message. > Oh, good point. In that case I guess I supported but didn't do so. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
On 2/10/2020 3:09 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Murphy wrote: >> Alexis wrote: >> >>> I intend, with 2 Support, to initiate an election for each of the >>> following offices: >>> >>> * Assessor, as I'm dissatisfied with the sparse content of resolutions; >>> * Notary, as it is a brand new office; >>> * Rulekeepor, as it is interim; and >>> * Prime Minister, as it is interim. >> >> I support each of the last three. > > For each of the last three, I support and do so. > Note the "provided..." bit in R2154: > > A player CAN initiate an election for a specified elected office: > > a) with 2 support, if either the office is interim or the most >recent election for that office was resolved more than 90 days >prior, and provided that the initiator becomes a candidate in >the same message.
