Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 23:19 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > > > This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic > > Partnership (a public contract). > > I haven't seen anyone attempt to cause the PNP to re-register, so > these are ineffective. Please let me know if I missed something. I agree, they're almost certainly ineffective, and for all I know it wasn't even the PNP who sent the message. That was basically the result of me preventing a Wooble dictatorship scam in the PNP (not a deliberate one; just, everyone else was idle, so he could have forced things through easily without a second person turning up, and I voted on Agora proposals to become active, and as a result the PNP decided to try to vote). -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic > Partnership (a public contract). I haven't seen anyone attempt to cause the PNP to re-register, so these are ineffective. Please let me know if I missed something.
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > 6309 AGAINST > 6314 AGAINST > 6318 AGAINST These missed the end of the voting period by about 5.5 hours.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Thu, 2009-03-19 at 11:49 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > > > 6155 FOR > > Ineffective due to caste. > Actually, given the PNP's standard voting header, it was specifically purporting to vote 0 times. So ineffective due to being a no-op. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > 6155 FOR Ineffective due to caste.
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > 6111 AGAINST About a day too late.
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > 6014 FOR This missed the end of the voting period by a few hours.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 13:53 +, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 7 Nov 2008, at 13:51, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > > > > > This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic > > Partnership (a public contract). > > > > The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a > > number of times equal to the maximum number of valid votes that > > the PerlNomic Partnership can make on an ordinary decision on each > > ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is identified by the > > number of the proposal the decision is about. > > > We know these don't work. > The voting works, it just isn't valid. The PNP correctly and legally voted AGAINSTx1 on them, and nothing will happen as a result as it's an invalid vote. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On 7 Nov 2008, at 13:51, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic Partnership (a public contract). The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a number of times equal to the maximum number of valid votes that the PerlNomic Partnership can make on an ordinary decision on each ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is identified by the number of the proposal the decision is about. We know these don't work. -- ehird
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > 5674 FOR Ineffective, voting period already ended. > 5685 FOR Effective.
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a
> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each
> ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is identified by the
> number of the proposal the decision is about.
"EVLOD" is no longer explicitly defined. I'm interpreting it as
working as intended, based on the natural-language interpretation
of its expansion ("effective voting limit on ordinary proposals"),
but the boilerplate file should still be updated.
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 11:04 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic > Partnership (a public contract). > > The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a > number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each > ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is identified by the > number of the proposal the decision is about. > > 5681 AGAINST > Yay, welcome back PNP! (I know you're Promoting, but it's nice to see you voting again too.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
2008/8/11 The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic > Partnership (a public contract). > > The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a > number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each > ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is identified by the > number of the proposal the decision is about. > > [invalid votes] Don't ask.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem with that is, under the old system, there were definitely > multiple things called "voting limits". "Effective voting limit on that > decision" and replacing "ordinary decision" with "decision" is probably good > enough... We could also just update it to explicitly say how many votes it's trying to cast on each decision, and either let players manually update the value (easy, and it could violate the partnership contract to falsify the values), or read the Assessor's report and automatically update it (considerably trickier).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 08:09, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > > > >> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a > >> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each > >> ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is identified by the > >> number of the proposal the decision is about. > > > > The above boilerplate should be updated, though EVLOD is probably an > > effective R754(1) synonym for "caste". > > Seems it ought to just say "voting limit", in case the system changes > again. The problem with that is, under the old system, there were definitely multiple things called "voting limits". "Effective voting limit on that decision" and replacing "ordinary decision" with "decision" is probably good enough... -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:51 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > >> The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a >> number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each >> ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is identified by the >> number of the proposal the decision is about. > > The above boilerplate should be updated, though EVLOD is probably an > effective R754(1) synonym for "caste". Seems it ought to just say "voting limit", in case the system changes again. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a > number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each > ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is identified by the > number of the proposal the decision is about. The above boilerplate should be updated, though EVLOD is probably an effective R754(1) synonym for "caste".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 00:18 +0100, Zefram wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > Zefram does not update it instantaneously when > >the voting period ends.) > > It's not intended to be a list of proposals that are in their voting > period, it's a list of *unresolved* proposals. A proposal comes off > that list only when its decision has been resolved by the publication of > voting results. I don't process *that* instantaneously, for that matter. I don't mind you not instantaneously updating it; the PNP just uses it because it's the most convenient resource available. I was just trying to explain why it's a bit slow sometimes. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
ais523 wrote: >Say, this is another argument for allowing attempts to perform actions >which will certainly fail; This is a reason for the PNP's message to include a phrase such as "if the proposal is in its voting period". > Zefram does not update it instantaneously when >the voting period ends.) It's not intended to be a list of proposals that are in their voting period, it's a list of *unresolved* proposals. A proposal comes off that list only when its decision has been resolved by the publication of voting results. I don't process *that* instantaneously, for that matter. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
ais523 wrote: > Say, this is another argument for allowing attempts to perform actions > which will certainly fail; the PNP often votes late on Agoran Decisions > due to the players of PerlNomic not deciding fast enough, and it's much > easier for it to simply perform the failed actions than it would be for > the PerlNomic server to figure out whether or not the actions would > succeed. (It uses Zefram's website to determine which proposals are in > their voting period, and Zefram does not update it instantaneously when > the voting period ends.) No, the PNP can and should update their boilerplate text to include something like "Disclaimer: the voting period may have ended without our noticing, in which case this will be ineffective".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It can't just add a week from the distribution date? I believe the rationale for not doing that was to not remove proposals that were still in their voting period due to failed quorum, but that's been rare lately, and I'd be happy to just have PNP not vote if we can't get around to casting the votes inside the original voting period whether or not quorum was met. Besides, we could always manually add a proposal to cast a particular vote in the rare case where something did fail quorum and we wanted to cause PNP to vote on it. Whether I'll actually get around to writing the code to fix it is another matter...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:14 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suspect that Wooble caused the PNP to send these votes not because e > thought they would work, but because it was the easiest way of > uncluttering the PNP's idea of what was going on in Agora after its > server crash. > > Say, this is another argument for allowing attempts to perform actions > which will certainly fail; the PNP often votes late on Agoran Decisions > due to the players of PerlNomic not deciding fast enough, and it's much > easier for it to simply perform the failed actions than it would be for > the PerlNomic server to figure out whether or not the actions would > succeed. (It uses Zefram's website to determine which proposals are in > their voting period, and Zefram does not update it instantaneously when > the voting period ends.) It can't just add a week from the distribution date? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 21:23 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > > > 5590 AGAINST > > 5591 AGAINST > > 5593 FOR > > 5594 FOR > > 5596 FOR > > 5597 AGAINST > > 5598 PRESENT > > These (and 5589 from the previous method) missed the voting period. I suspect that Wooble caused the PNP to send these votes not because e thought they would work, but because it was the easiest way of uncluttering the PNP's idea of what was going on in Agora after its server crash. Say, this is another argument for allowing attempts to perform actions which will certainly fail; the PNP often votes late on Agoran Decisions due to the players of PerlNomic not deciding fast enough, and it's much easier for it to simply perform the failed actions than it would be for the PerlNomic server to figure out whether or not the actions would succeed. (It uses Zefram's website to determine which proposals are in their voting period, and Zefram does not update it instantaneously when the voting period ends.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > 5590 AGAINST > 5591 AGAINST > 5593 FOR > 5594 FOR > 5596 FOR > 5597 AGAINST > 5598 PRESENT These (and 5589 from the previous method) missed the voting period.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 07:08 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The voting period has already ended on these proposals. > > Hmm; the agora_sync program is supposed to remove proposals > corresponding to Agoran proposals that are no longer open, and was > working right a while ago. It does, it just has to wait for Zefram to update eir website first, or it doesn't know whether they failed quorum. Therefore, the PNP has a tendency to vote slightly late, between when the Assessor reports that the vote has passed quorum, and the Promotor removes the proposals from eir website. (The PNP couldn't have voted any earlier, because it was waiting for consensus at PerlNomic.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The voting period has already ended on these proposals. Hmm; the agora_sync program is supposed to remove proposals corresponding to Agoran proposals that are no longer open, and was working right a while ago.
DIS: Re: BUS: PNP Voting
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:25 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This message serves to make votes on behalf of the PerlNomic > Partnership (a public contract). > > The PerlNomic Partnership votes as follows. Each vote is made a > number of times equal to the PerlNomic Partnership's EVLOD on each > ordinary decision listed below. Each decision is identified by the > number of the proposal the decision is about. > > 5565 AGAINST > 5559 AGAINST > 5566 PRESENT The voting period has already ended on these proposals. -root
