DIS: Re: BUS: Re: (@notary, @assessor) A vote, a promise, and a [cfj]
The minimal fix would be to prevent promises from cashing promises created after they began to be cashed—that would allow promises to create and cash promises, just not recursively. Gaelan > On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:30 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > > On 2/28/2021 3:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> I grant myself a promise, "Neverending PRESENT", with the following text: > > So if this works, or fails on a minor technicality, my guess is that the > best fix is to prevent promises from making promises - does that break > anything useful? > > We can protect ballots from indeterminacy if we want, but as long as this > promise loopiness exists there will probably be something that can be > looped for a paradox win. > > -G. >
DIS: [Promotor] Draft
My draft report follows. -Aris --- PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it, and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the quorum is 5, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). ID Author(s) AITitle --- 8544* Murphy 3.0 Clarify dependent actions 8545* Aris, Murphy3.0 Uncanny Fixes 8546*~ G. 3.0 Talisn't 8547*~ Jason, G. 3.0 ER office restriction 8548&~ Jason 2.0 Stone defaults The proposal pool is currently empty. Legend: * : Democratic proposal. & : Ordinary proposal. ~ : Unsponsored proposal. The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where the information shown below differs from the information shown above, the information shown above shall control. // ID: 8544 Title: Clarify dependent actions Author: Murphy Co-authors: Adoption index: 3.0 Amend Rule 2595 (Performing a Dependent Action) to read: A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform an action by a set of one or more dependent actions thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all of the following are true: 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent that unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken and the method(s) to be used, including these values if relevant: * If the action is to be taken with T notice, then the value of T. * If the action is to be taken without N objections, with N support, or with N Agoran Consent, and N is not equal to 1, then the value of N. 2. The time between the announcement of intent and the action is at most 14 days. In addition: * If the action is to be taken without N objections or with N Agoran consent, then it is at least 4 days. * If the action is to be taken with T notice, then it is at least T (minimum of 4 days). 3. At least one of the following is true: * The performer is the initiator. * The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer. * The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it. 4. Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other Rules. 5. If the announcement of intent stated any conditions, then those conditions are all met. If the action is to be taken with N Agoran consent, then the performer SHOULD publish a list of supporters and objectors. Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) to read: A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent. The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is not eligible to support it, and a person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same type of response. Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed without N objections, and there are at least N Objectors to that intent. 2. The action is to be performed with N support, and there are fewer than than N Supporters of that intent. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran consent, and the number of Supporters of that intent is less than or equal to N times the number of Objectors to that intent. 4. The action is to be performed without N objections or with N Agora consent, and an objection to that intent was withdrawn within the past 24 hours. 5. The Speaker objected to that intent within the past 48 hours. // ID: 8545 Title: Uncanny Fixes Author: Aris Co-authors: Murphy Adoption index: 3.0 [CAN requires a method, but there are a bunch of places it occurs without a method or is othe
Re: DIS: [Proto] Uncanny Fixes
On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 9:43 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 2/28/2021 9:32 AM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > >> Amend Rule 107, "Initiating Agoran Decisions", by replacing: > >> > >>The vote collector for a decision with less than two options > >>CAN and SHALL end the voting period by announcement, if it has not > >>ended already, and provided that e resolves the decision in the > >>same message. > >> > >> with: > >> > >>The vote collector for a decision with less than two options > >>CAN end the voting period by announcement, if it has not > >>ended already, and provided that e resolves the decision in the > >>same message. > > > > This may be more of a change than you intended, as it removes the > > penalty for the vote collector failing to do any of this. > > Broken anyway: The SHALL has no time limit, and a standard time limit > would be moot as the voting period would auto-end in the meantime. Also, the "SHALL" is covered by the "provided that", which makes it just a requirement that *if the vote collector* decides to resolve it in the same mesage. -Aris
Re: DIS: [Proto] Uncanny Fixes
On 2/28/2021 9:32 AM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: >> Amend Rule 107, "Initiating Agoran Decisions", by replacing: >> >>The vote collector for a decision with less than two options >>CAN and SHALL end the voting period by announcement, if it has not >>ended already, and provided that e resolves the decision in the >>same message. >> >> with: >> >>The vote collector for a decision with less than two options >>CAN end the voting period by announcement, if it has not >>ended already, and provided that e resolves the decision in the >>same message. > > This may be more of a change than you intended, as it removes the > penalty for the vote collector failing to do any of this. Broken anyway: The SHALL has no time limit, and a standard time limit would be moot as the voting period would auto-end in the meantime. -G.
Re: DIS: [Proto] Uncanny Fixes
Aris wrote: When I was going through the rules to find CAN instances without methods that need fixing, I found a bunch of other places where CAN and other MMI terms were just used... weirdly. Not all of them are even obviously incorrect, but all of the instances in this proposal at least felt out of place to me, and some didn't make sense at all. I don't expect this to patch actual breakages, just to resolve things that might sound weird or get interpreted oddly in some strange edge case. Amend Rule 107, "Initiating Agoran Decisions", by replacing: The vote collector for a decision with less than two options CAN and SHALL end the voting period by announcement, if it has not ended already, and provided that e resolves the decision in the same message. with: The vote collector for a decision with less than two options CAN end the voting period by announcement, if it has not ended already, and provided that e resolves the decision in the same message. This may be more of a change than you intended, as it removes the penalty for the vote collector failing to do any of this. Amend Rule 2573, "Impeachment", by replacing: A player CAN be expelled (impeached) from a specified elected office which e holds with 2 Agoran consent. with: A player CAN be expelled (impeached) from a specified elected office which e holds by any player with 2 Agoran consent. Intent is clear, but this feels clunky. How about: Any player CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, expel (impeach) the holder of a specified elected office.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly Report
On 2/27/2021 12:04 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-October/010878.html > > * 2018-04-06: G. adds more entries with a deregistration date of "5 Apr 94" > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2018-April/012336.html > > (#) I am guessing G. really meant "5 Apr 94 or earlier", in which > case adding a "<=" to the entries e added would make sense. > > G. added the new entries after Timothy, even though that puts the > dates out of order. If it could be established that Timothy > deregistered after 1994-04-05, I would move eir entry to the end of > the 1994 section; otherwise I'll leave it as is since I really don't > know. The ones I "added" were shifted from "Left in 1995" to "Left in 1994", probably because the 5 Apr 94 got shifted from "registration" to "deregistration". We can see the process: omd's 2014 report, first entry in the "Left in 1995" section: Chuck ccarroll at students.wisc.edu5 Apr 94<= (implying Chuck registered on or before 5 Apr 94; deregistration unknown) At some point the were changed to blanks, leading to this in 2017: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-November/012133.html Chuck ccarroll at students.wisc.edu 5 Apr 94 (implying Chuck registered on 5 Apr 94, deregistration blank). Then I must have had a data entry error when I took over the job, leading to this in 2018: Chuck ccarroll at students.wisc.edu 5 Apr 94 (5 Apr 94 shifted in columns from a registration to deregistration date, and therefore shifted from "Left in 95" section to "Left in 94" section). Overall, I think omd's entries that include "<=" and "" to keep columns from shifting is the most accurate, although I'm not sure Chuck emself ever deregistered, so Chuck's "Left in 2001" entry should be kept and the 1994/1995 entry deleted?
