DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Proto-Proposal: Agora shall make no law... (AI = 3, please) Amend Rule 101 (Agoran Rights and Privileges) by changing the labels (iv through viii) to (v through ix) respectively, and by replacing this text: iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or judicial order binding em. with this text: iii. Every player has the right to submit a proposal and have it voted on in a timely fashion. iv. Every person has the right to invoke a judgement, appeal a judgement, appeal a sentencing or judicial order binding em, and receive judgement in a timely fashion.
DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Murphy wrote: >iv. Every person has the right to invoke a judgement, appeal a >judgement, appeal a sentencing or judicial order binding em, >and receive judgement in a timely fashion. Looks good, for clarity, I'd suggest the "receive" clause right after "invoke" clause, so the phrase follows the logical progression of a CFJ. >iii. Every player has the right to submit a proposal and have it > voted on in a timely fashion. Actually, I don't think we need to fix this. In fact, I'd vote against it. There's been a healthy history of proposal-killing/delaying procedures that we should keep that this would stop (e.g. vetoes, making undistributable, distribution costs in general). We just need to make sure we have a sufficient diversity of mechanisms that takeover proposals have a chance of being outmaneuvered. If your oligarch proposal hadn't had the CFJ part, I would have voted for it! -Goethe
DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Zefram wrote: > I think it's been unhealthy in places. Short delays (such as the > Speaker's Veto in practice achieves) seem fine, but not the indefinite > delays and dropping of proposals that resulted from P-Notes and > artificially restricted distribution. Well, during the Papyri version of this, anyone who couldn't get hold of the cash to distribute a proposal Wasn't Really Trying, especially with Disinteresting. I personally think we should be more restrictive about free proposing, people (in general) have gotten out of the habit of proto-ing. It's undesirable if the balance paralyzes the game. The question is, should this be a "basic right", or something we tweak at a lower level. I'd go for lower level. Finally, the clause "right to have it voted on" is troubling. Is it "voted on" if a veto or guillotine ends the voting period? The old general language "voted upon" caused a major scam attempt, which IMO after the fact should have succeeded: CFJ 1550. -Goethe
DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Zefram wrote: > > I personally think we should be more restrictive about free proposing, > > people (in general) have gotten out of the habit of proto-ing. > > I don't see the connection here. If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed, you don't pay that cost for a first draft. At the very least, I'd like to see every proposal require Support for distribution, to ensure at least a second pair of eyes has glanced at it. I really think that even requiring announcement "I make it distributable" was enough to make someone pause and think, which is desireable especially when people rush to throw in a bug fix. We don't even require that anymore, that's part of what has given rise to CFJ 1647. > The guillotine, > when it existed, required quite a few signatures and had an element of > voting in itself, so I don't think that would offend the right. I think > generally altering the voting period doesn't contravene proposal rights > so long as it remains a reasonable duration. Again, CFJ 1550 would contradict you: its logic applies to this proto, as the old R106 "all Proposals made and distributed in the proper way shall be voted upon" more or less promised the same right as the proto, even though R106 didn't call it a "right." -Goethe
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Ed Murphy wrote: > iii. Every player has the right to submit a proposal and have it >voted on in a timely fashion. "... and have it adopted if popular"? Not sure how to phrase the condition, but we definitely need such a clause. >iv. Every person has the right to invoke a judgement, appeal a >judgement, appeal a sentencing or judicial order binding em, >and receive judgement in a timely fashion. Might have to detail what appeal achieves, in the light of the judgement on "invoke". -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Zefram wrote: iv. Every person has the right to invoke a judgement, appeal a judgement, appeal a sentencing or judicial order binding em, and receive judgement in a timely fashion. Might have to detail what appeal achieves, in the light of the judgement on "invoke". Should be covered by the "receive judgement" clause. Appeals were re-classed as a form of judgement in 2002 (allowing several largely redundant rules to be eliminated).
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Ed Murphy wrote: >Should be covered by the "receive judgement" clause. If you apply that to the appeal clause, that implies that a single appeal will have to result in an appeal judgement (where currently three are required). Also, possibly, that an appeal judgement can be appealed. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Kerim Aydin wrote: > There's been a healthy history of proposal-killing/delaying procedures >that we should keep that this would stop (e.g. vetoes, making undistributable, >distribution costs in general). I think it's been unhealthy in places. Short delays (such as the Speaker's Veto in practice achieves) seem fine, but not the indefinite delays and dropping of proposals that resulted from P-Notes and artificially restricted distribution. I'd like a rights clause that rules the latter out. (Andre left in a huff partly because e spent eir only P-Note on a proposal and then saw it languish in the proposal pool and eventually be dropped due to old age.) -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Should be covered by the "receive judgement" clause. If you apply that to the appeal clause, that implies that a single appeal will have to result in an appeal judgement (where currently three are required). An appeal receives three judgements, yes, but this can also be considered as receiving "judgement" in a broader sense. Also, possibly, that an appeal judgement can be appealed. R1564 fails to permit this.
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Kerim Aydin wrote: >I personally think we should be more restrictive about free proposing, >people (in general) have gotten out of the habit of proto-ing. I don't see the connection here. >Finally, the clause "right to have it voted on" is troubling. Is >it "voted on" if a veto or guillotine ends the voting period? With the present Speaker's Veto, an identical (except for AI) proposal will be voted on the next week, and won't be subject to veto. So that doesn't prevent the proposal being voted on or adopted (if one accepts the copy of the proposal as being close enough for R101). The guillotine, when it existed, required quite a few signatures and had an element of voting in itself, so I don't think that would offend the right. I think generally altering the voting period doesn't contravene proposal rights so long as it remains a reasonable duration. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Kerim Aydin wrote: >If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed, Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to creating artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in that way, but it sounds like quite a lot of extra work for very little benefit. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
On May 7, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Zefram wrote: Finally, the clause "right to have it voted on" is troubling. Is it "voted on" if a veto or guillotine ends the voting period? With the present Speaker's Veto, an identical (except for AI) proposal will be voted on the next week, and won't be subject to veto. So that doesn't prevent the proposal being voted on or adopted (if one accepts the copy of the proposal as being close enough for R101). The guillotine, when it existed, required quite a few signatures and had an element of voting in itself, so I don't think that would offend the right. I think generally altering the voting period doesn't contravene proposal rights so long as it remains a reasonable duration. Since I started playing, I don't remember the Guillotine having been used. When was it last used? (The scary thing is, I presently have the second oldest current registration!) - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
On May 7, 2007, at 1:30 PM, Zefram wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed, Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. No, but proposal entry and distribution is. (Why do I think I just got another entry in Maud's rotating quotes file?) - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Zefram wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed, Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to creating artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in that way, but it sounds like quite a lot of extra work for very little benefit. What about only charging for proposals with AI < 2?
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
On May 7, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: Zefram wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed, Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to creating artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in that way, but it sounds like quite a lot of extra work for very little benefit. What about only charging for proposals with AI < 2? Given the current (and desirable) activity in such proposals, I would support this. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Benjamin Schultz wrote: >Since I started playing, I don't remember the Guillotine having been >used. When was it last used? Never used within the range of the current mailing list archives (back to 2002-11-03). On 2002-11-26 you proposed its repeal, on the basis that it hadn't been used in recent memory. It was eventually repealed on 2005-05-15. Its lack of use may be related to the shortening of the voting period from ten days to seven days. Its certainly less useful with the shorter period. I came up with it in a period when we were thinking about inter-nomic war (it was enacted just after the Risho-Agora War) and the ten-day decision cycle was too long when so many other potential-enemy nomics had voting periods of seven days or so. I'm not sure that the Guillotine was ever actually used. In the mail logs available to me I see two attempts. Andre attempted a Guillotine in 1997-09 for proposal 3550. The motivation for this was that the Virus had just knocked out rule 693, which at the time set the length of the voting period. The Guillotine was the only clear way to get a voting period to end, and proposal 3550 would disinfect and upmutate several rules to make basic parts of the game immune to the Virus. (Incidentally, it was to upmutate them to Power=1.5, possibly the earliest proposal to use non-integer Power.) The Guillotine didn't attract enough signatures. When R693 disinfected itself (after two weeks) voting periods were retroactively defined, and P3550 failed 4-5. Oerjan attempted a Guillotine in 1997-11 during the Zombie crisis. (There was a bug in Kelly's abominable Probate rules which allowed the executor-in-probate of a deregistered player's estate to reregister the player and control em as a puppet.) Oerjan submitted proposal 3581 which would fix the Probate bug, but those who controlled several zombie players were naturally opposed to the fix and controlled lots of zombie votes. One of the planned tactics was for the pro-fix players to vote quickly and then execute a Guillotine to prevent the zombie masters voting it down. The Guillotine rule was designed so that this tactic shouldn't work, and actually almost no pro-fixers signed the application anyway. The proposal passed 13-8, after a normal voting period, by the use of other tricks. The Guillotine might perhaps have been used for its intended purpose during the Acka-Agora War. I don't have the mail for that period. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Benjamin Schultz wrote: >On May 7, 2007, at 1:30 PM, Zefram wrote: >>Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. > >No, but proposal entry and distribution is. Eh? What do you mean by "proposal entry"? I don't see any scarcity around here. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Ed Murphy wrote: >What about only charging for proposals with AI < 2? That's conceptually interesting. It fits in with my general plan of separating undemocratic Ordinary proposals from a purer democratic system. The charging would still constitute an artificial scarcity, of course, but restricted in scope to the playground of artificial voting structures. I'd like the charging threshold to be the same as the Ordinary/Democratic threshold, whatever that ends up as. -zefram
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
On 5/7/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Never used within the range of the current mailing list archives (back to 2002-11-03). On 2002-11-26 you proposed its repeal, on the basis that it hadn't been used in recent memory. It was eventually repealed on 2005-05-15. On 18 July 2001, Murphy solicited signatures for a Guillotine Application to target eir proposal "Fix Buggy VE Debts". I can't find any responses to this message. Also, I don't think a proposal with this title existed, though Murphy did have a proposal submitted on 17 July 2001 with the title "Forgive Buggy VE Debts". This proposal read: -begin quote- Upon the adoption of this Proposal, all outstanding debts in VEs that arose from Rule 1946 prior to July 14, 2001, are forgiven. --end quote-- -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) [I can do this by hand, so I will. Besides, it's raining. -G.]
