Re: DIS: [Proto] Deputisation timeliness
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 17:16, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 1/18/20 11:07 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > Ah, I see where we were thinking differently. Yes, I think your idea > works > > then, so long as it happens earlier in the week before the officer > > publishes the report and the obligation is live. Once the report is > > published, the obligation is fulfilled until the start of the next week, > > whereupon it would be possible again. > > > > I think a better way to frame it might be to rephrase in terms of > > obligations. So 1 becomes "There is an obligation on the holder of that > > office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action.", 3 > > becomes "a time limit applicable to that obligation has been violated", > etc. > > Sure those make sense (as does as a general statute of limitations). > > > > While we're here, I think that condition 4 could do with some clean-ups? > > What's wrong with condition 4? > Nothing wrong with it per se, but the announcement of intent is not the most relevant thing any more. I wonder if we should increase the situations where it's used or get rid of it. One option would be that non-temporary deputization for a non-interim office must be announced in advanced; i.e., someone who got into office by election is entitled to notice that you are threatening to usurp them. Alexis
Re: DIS: [Proto] Deputisation timeliness
On 1/18/20 11:07 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > Ah, I see where we were thinking differently. Yes, I think your idea works > then, so long as it happens earlier in the week before the officer > publishes the report and the obligation is live. Once the report is > published, the obligation is fulfilled until the start of the next week, > whereupon it would be possible again. > > I think a better way to frame it might be to rephrase in terms of > obligations. So 1 becomes "There is an obligation on the holder of that > office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action.", 3 > becomes "a time limit applicable to that obligation has been violated", etc. Sure those make sense (as does as a general statute of limitations). > While we're here, I think that condition 4 could do with some clean-ups? What's wrong with condition 4? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Proto] Deputisation timeliness
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 22:17, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Here's an excerpt from R2160: > > > 1. the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of > > holding that office, to perform the action (this requirement is > > fulfilled by the deputy performing the action); > > > > 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, > > other than by deputisation, if e held the office; > > > > 3. either (i) a time limit by which the rules require the action > > to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant; > > > > 4. either (i) the office is vacant, (ii) the aforementioned time > > limit expired more than fourteen days ago, or (iii) the deputy > > announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended > > to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular > > action; and > > > Say an office failed to publish a weekly report one year ago. I think it > would be possible to deputise for that office to publish a weekly report: > > Condition 1. is fulfilled because the Rules require the office to > publish a weekly report (in the hypothetical). > Ah, I see where we were thinking differently. Yes, I think your idea works then, so long as it happens earlier in the week before the officer publishes the report and the obligation is live. Once the report is published, the obligation is fulfilled until the start of the next week, whereupon it would be possible again. I think a better way to frame it might be to rephrase in terms of obligations. So 1 becomes "There is an obligation on the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action.", 3 becomes "a time limit applicable to that obligation has been violated", etc. While we're here, I think that condition 4 could do with some clean-ups? -Alexis
Re: DIS: [Proto] Deputisation timeliness
On 1/18/20 10:07 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > I don't think you're correct; the first condition of rule 2160 is that > the officer is required to perform the action. You would need to set > this up would be if you could create a way that the officer could > perform the action without discharging the obligation, which would be > a nice trick! > > Furthermore, for reports specifically, the act of publishing the > report once fulfills all the obligations to publish. Although if Aris' > interpretation of "publish a report accurate to some time within the > week", perhaps it doesn't... Actually, I think that may be the > strongest argument, better than all my other ones, against eir > interpretation. Here's an excerpt from R2160: > 1. the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of > holding that office, to perform the action (this requirement is > fulfilled by the deputy performing the action); > > 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, > other than by deputisation, if e held the office; > > 3. either (i) a time limit by which the rules require the action > to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant; > > 4. either (i) the office is vacant, (ii) the aforementioned time > limit expired more than fourteen days ago, or (iii) the deputy > announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended > to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular > action; and Say an office failed to publish a weekly report one year ago. I think it would be possible to deputise for that office to publish a weekly report: Condition 1. is fulfilled because the Rules require the office to publish a weekly report (in the hypothetical). Condition 2. is fulfilled because the Office can publish that Office's weekly report. Condition 3. is fulfilled because, at least by my reading, the time limit has still been violated, and nothing can ever un-violate it. It's still always true that "the Office has violated a requirement to publish the weekly report for that week", even if the obligation was later fulfilled. Condition 4. is fulfilled because the time limit expired a year ago, which is more than 14 days. Condition 5 (not shown) can be trivially fulfilled. I'm assuming if this argument is wrong, it fails on condition 3, but I honestly don't see what's wrong with my reading there. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Proto] Deputisation timeliness
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 21:58, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Full disclosure, I think the bug that this fixes could be used for a > scam attempt similar to the 18K scam. Specifically, I believe a person > could find an office that missed a report a while ago, and then > repeatedly deputise for it, earning a Cyan ribbon an arbitrary number of > times. > I don't think you're correct; the first condition of rule 2160 is that the officer is required to perform the action. You would need to set this up would be if you could create a way that the officer could perform the action without discharging the obligation, which would be a nice trick! Furthermore, for reports specifically, the act of publishing the report once fulfills all the obligations to publish. Although if Aris' interpretation of "publish a report accurate to some time within the week", perhaps it doesn't... Actually, I think that may be the strongest argument, better than all my other ones, against eir interpretation. That doesn't preclude digging up old obligations of other natures. But a statute of limitations might be good here, and function as a blanket solution. Something like "a time limit by which the rules require the action to taken was violated less than a month/quarter ago." -Alexis
DIS: [Proto] Deputisation timeliness
Full disclosure, I think the bug that this fixes could be used for a
scam attempt similar to the 18K scam. Specifically, I believe a person
could find an office that missed a report a while ago, and then
repeatedly deputise for it, earning a Cyan ribbon an arbitrary number of
times.
I just want to proto this to ensure that it's not going to break anything:
{
Amend Rule 2160 (Deputisation) as follow:
{
Insert a list item after number 3 that reads:
4. either (i) the office-holder is not required to perform the
action on a regular basis or (ii) the most recently ended time limit
to perform the action was violated;
Renumber the remainder of the list accordingly.
}
}
--
Jason Cobb
