DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
On 6/27/20 9:07 PM, Ed Strange via agora-business wrote: > Tpf > > On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 11:06 am Ed Strange, > wrote: > >> I point a finger at jason for uncertain certification. Reasonable players >> may not disagree about the operation of the current wording. I have no reason to believe that Jason is being unreasonable, and G. has contributed in a manner suggestive of eir belief that Jason is being reasonable, so I find this finger-pointing to be SHENANIGANS. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
On 6/27/20 9:26 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > Something must be valid in order to have binding legal effect, surely thats > what valid means (and my judgement on notices doesnt conflict with that). Well, this is proof that there's disagreement. I think I'm being relatively reasonable, since I have a self-consistent (if decidedly literal) reading of the relevant rule. The fact that you happen to disagree with me doesn't make me unreasonable. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
Something must be valid in order to have binding legal effect, surely thats what valid means (and my judgement on notices doesnt conflict with that). On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 11:23 am Jason Cobb via agora-discussion, < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/27/20 9:16 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > > No, i said they may not disagree. Any contention that valid and effective > > are not synonyms is, with respect, unreasonable > > > The argument is that "the announcement" (i.e. the message) being not > "valid" is different from the attempt not being EFFECTIVE. We have > "invalid" notices of honour that are still notices of honour, so we > might be able to have announcements of taking actions that are not > "valid" but nevertheless take actions. > > -- > Jason Cobb > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
On 6/27/20 9:16 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > No, i said they may not disagree. Any contention that valid and effective > are not synonyms is, with respect, unreasonable The argument is that "the announcement" (i.e. the message) being not "valid" is different from the attempt not being EFFECTIVE. We have "invalid" notices of honour that are still notices of honour, so we might be able to have announcements of taking actions that are not "valid" but nevertheless take actions. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
No, i said they may not disagree. Any contention that valid and effective are not synonyms is, with respect, unreasonable On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 11:12 am Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion, < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/27/2020 6:06 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > > I point a finger at jason for uncertain certification. Reasonable players > > may not disagree about the operation of the current wording. > > Which means it's an ambiguity which is covered by CP? > > -G. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
On 6/27/2020 6:06 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > I point a finger at jason for uncertain certification. Reasonable players > may not disagree about the operation of the current wording. Which means it's an ambiguity which is covered by CP? -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
I point a finger at jason for uncertain certification. Reasonable players
may not disagree about the operation of the current wording.
On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 11:02 am Jason Cobb via agora-business, <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal and certify it as a patch:
>
> Title: Decision resolution patch
>
> Author: Jason
>
> Coauthors: nch, G.
>
> Adoption index: 3.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 208 by replacing the text "To be valid, this announcement
> must satisfy the following conditions" with the text "To be EFFECTIVE,
> such an attempt must satisfy the following conditions".
>
>
> [This resolves a potential bug that *may* permit the vote collector of a
> decision to resolve it without adhering to the conditions in the
> numbered list of Rule 208 based on the precise wording of how the
> conditions are enforced. The argument that they don't work is that the
> sentence doesn't sufficiently override R208's earlier statement that
> "The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by
> announcement, indicating the outcome.", because it describes the
> announcement, rather than the attempt itself.
>
> Even if that interpretation is wrong, there is enough of an ambiguity
> that it should be resolved. The new wording makes this clearer by
> describing the /attempt/ as INEFFECTIVE (clearly overriding the earlier
> CAN) rather than the "announcement".]
>
> }
>
>
> Justification for certification as a patch:
>
> An ambiguity exists because "reasonable players" can "disagree about the
> operation" of Rule 208. Even if you think I am not a reasonable player,
> nch and G. were at least willing to entertain my arguments and did not
> dismiss me as entirely insane. The proposal's "sole function" is to
> resolve this ambiguity and fix the (potential) bug.
>
> This ambiguity relates to my office as Assessor because it is the
> Assessor's entire function to collect votes on and resolve Agoran
> decisions. This ambiguity affects what requirements and abilities are
> placed on vote collectors, so it relates to the office of Assessor.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>
