Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:08 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/12/23 01:02, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > Each player CAN, with 2 support, flip an ordinary proposal's class > to > > expedited, provided it is in the Proposal Pool and e has not done so yet > > this week. Each player CAN, by announcement, flip an expedited proposal's > > class to ordinary, but SHOULD only do so if the proposal is not a bugfix, > > emergency, or time-sensitive issue, or if e sees an issue with the > proposal. > > > What's to stop two groups from just fighting over whether something is a > bugfix? > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > If there's any disagreement, it would be useless to attempt an expedited proposal, since it could be made ordinary by announcement. Any fight would just return to the normal proposal system, though distributed early as it received 2 support. And about "voting strength games", any player could reactivate voting strength on the proposal if they would vote against it. Voting strength only matters when there's disagreement anyways, and if there is any, it'll get turned back to ordinary by whichever side wants the voting strength to be in effect. Or by any player who agrees with the "SHOULD". If everyone agrees to gamify it, then why not? There's really not more danger than a normal proposal, anyways, since this is just streamlining the process to what it can already be at a minimum. Even if you can come up with an example of how the expedited proposal could be abused, you could also probably just spot it and turn it ordinary. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On 5/12/23 01:02, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured > untracked Class switch with possible values ordinary (the default), > expedited, and democratic. Also, this opens up new voting strength games, since expedited proposals wouldn't have most voting strength modifications applied. A mere SHOULD might not be enough to stop that. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Expedited Proposals
On 5/12/23 01:02, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > Each player CAN, with 2 support, flip an ordinary proposal's class to > expedited, provided it is in the Proposal Pool and e has not done so yet > this week. Each player CAN, by announcement, flip an expedited proposal's > class to ordinary, but SHOULD only do so if the proposal is not a bugfix, > emergency, or time-sensitive issue, or if e sees an issue with the proposal. What's to stop two groups from just fighting over whether something is a bugfix? -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Assessor) 8960-8964
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 4:47 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 4:16 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 4/29/23 02:20, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > > > I vote as follows: > > > 8960 ABSENT > > > 8961 FOR > > > 8962 FOR > > > 8963 FOR > > > 8964 AGAINST > > > > > > (also, I am now accepting bribes.) > > > > > > The vote on 8960 fails. It is not clear which decision is being > > referenced (there are two P8960's). > > > > -- > > Janet Cobb > > > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > > > > ABSENT is not a vote. Did you mean to reply to the one where I attempted to > vote FOR and referenced the context of nix who gave it the number 8960? > > -- > 4st > Referee > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator > Or, I suppose I should say, the vote would have failed anyways, since ABSENT is not a valid vote. -- 4st Referee Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Assessor) 8960-8964
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 4:16 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/29/23 02:20, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > > I vote as follows: > > 8960 ABSENT > > 8961 FOR > > 8962 FOR > > 8963 FOR > > 8964 AGAINST > > > > (also, I am now accepting bribes.) > > > The vote on 8960 fails. It is not clear which decision is being > referenced (there are two P8960's). > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > ABSENT is not a vote. Did you mean to reply to the one where I attempted to vote FOR and referenced the context of nix who gave it the number 8960? -- 4st Referee Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
