Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Keba wrote: comex wrote: [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't all that high (if it were, this would be too chaotic), I think that BlogNomic-style immediate distribution is not only feasible, but a significant improvement over what we have now, and not too much extra work for the Assessor or voters.] Just an information for the non BlogNomic players here: BlogNomic is rather fast, some players (including IenpwIII and me) say it‘s too fast. I voted FOR many propsoals, while I might would have voted against it, because of theoretically scams, if I had more time to so so. But I would like a way to adopt *really* important Proposals fast. Maybe an Agoran decision could be created directly with 4 support and by paying 4 ergs? More from the ancient archives. I think it should come back, it scarcely needs modification to do so (maybe a cost jiggle, and an MMI edit): Rule 1724/8 (Power=1) Urgent Proposals A Proposal is Urgent if all the following conditions are met: i) the text of the message wherein it is submitted explicitly states that it is an Urgent Proposal, ii) The Proposal is Interested. An Urgent Proposal has its Distribution Cost increased by 1. The Promotor may distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as it becomes Distributable, and e is required to do so within five days. Failure to do so is the Class 1 Infraction of Lack of Urgency, which may be reported by any Player. The Voting Period of an Urgent Proposal is five days from the time the Proposal is distributed. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
Kerim Aydin wrote: More from the ancient archives. I think it should come back, it scarcely needs modification to do so (maybe a cost jiggle, and an MMI edit): Rule 1724/8 (Power=1) Urgent Proposals A Proposal is Urgent if all the following conditions are met: i) the text of the message wherein it is submitted explicitly states that it is an Urgent Proposal, ii) The Proposal is Interested. An Urgent Proposal has its Distribution Cost increased by 1. The Promotor may distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as it becomes Distributable, and e is required to do so within five days. Failure to do so is the Class 1 Infraction of Lack of Urgency, which may be reported by any Player. The Voting Period of an Urgent Proposal is five days from the time the Proposal is distributed. -G. Hm, that sounds nice, but need to be rewritten. Class 1 Infraction should be Class-1-Crime and Rule 107 states: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Keba wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: More from the ancient archives. I think it should come back, it scarcely needs modification to do so (maybe a cost jiggle, and an MMI edit): Hm, that sounds nice, but need to be rewritten. Class 1 Infraction should be Class-1-Crime and Rule 107 states: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days. Here we go, simple proto, Urgency, AI-3: Amend R107 by replacing: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days. with: The voting period for a decision with at least two options is secured at seven days. Amend R2284 (Fee-based actions) by replacing: - A player CAN make a proposal Distributable for a charge of 1 erg. with: - A player CAN make a non-urgent proposal Distributable for a charge of 1 erg. - A player CAN make an urgent proposal Distributable for a charge of 3 ergs. Enact the following rule, Power-3, Urgent Proposals: A Proposal is Urgent if all the following conditions are met: i) the text of the message wherein it is submitted explicitly states that it is an Urgent Proposal, ii) The Proposal is Interested. The Promotor CAN distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as it becomes Distributable, and e SHALL do so within five days unless it becomes undistributable in the mean time. Failure to do so is the Class 1 Crime of Lack of Urgency, which may be reported by any Player. The Voting Period of an Urgent Proposal is five days from the time the Proposal is distributed. ---
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, comex wrote: To avoid spam scams, a proposal CANNOT be created except in a message with exactly one Subject header, which must contain with the exact text [Proposal] with no more than ten characters preceding it. Regardless of the merits of the rest of this, I really dislike legislating form to this level and will vote against on these grounds. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
Kerim Aydin wrote: Here we go, simple proto, Urgency, AI-3: Amend R107 by replacing: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days. with: The voting period for a decision with at least two options is secured at seven days. Amend R2284 (Fee-based actions) by replacing: - A player CAN make a proposal Distributable for a charge of 1 erg. with: - A player CAN make a non-urgent proposal Distributable for a charge of 1 erg. - A player CAN make an urgent proposal Distributable for a charge of 3 ergs. Enact the following rule, Power-3, Urgent Proposals: A Proposal is Urgent if all the following conditions are met: i) the text of the message wherein it is submitted explicitly states that it is an Urgent Proposal, ii) The Proposal is Interested. The Promotor CAN distribute an Urgent Proposal as soon as it becomes Distributable, and e SHALL do so within five days unless it becomes undistributable in the mean time. Failure to do so is the Class 1 Crime of Lack of Urgency, which may be reported by any Player. The Voting Period of an Urgent Proposal is five days from the time the Proposal is distributed. Nice. I thought about a with N support (or without N objetions) phrase, but this way is much better. If there is anyone who wants to pay a fee to make an Urgent Proposal undistributable. Maybe we should say that undistribute a Urgent Proposal costs only one Erg? Additionally, if you propose this, I‘ll propose a limit of Urgent Proposals. A player MAY NOT submit a Urgent Proposal, if there are already N (or more) distributable Urgent Proposals in the Proposal pool. What’s a good value for N? Maybe 3? I assume it’s important to put the limit into another Proposal, so both are more likely to pass. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Keba wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: Nice. I thought about a with N support (or without N objetions) phrase, but this way is much better. If there is anyone who wants to pay a fee to make an Urgent Proposal undistributable. Maybe we should say that undistribute a Urgent Proposal costs only one Erg? I think this may tilt the balance a little towards the opponents of an urgent proposal. I'll keep it as 2 and maybe you can adjust it in your proposal? Additionally, if you propose this, I‘ll propose a limit of Urgent Proposals. A player MAY NOT submit a Urgent Proposal, if there are already N (or more) distributable Urgent Proposals in the Proposal pool. What’s a good value for N? Maybe 3? Sounds like a plan, I'll make mine distributable after leaving it for others' comments for a day. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, comex wrote: To avoid spam scams, a proposal CANNOT be created except in a message with exactly one Subject header, which must contain with the exact text [Proposal] with no more than ten characters preceding it. Regardless of the merits of the rest of this, I really dislike legislating form to this level and will vote against on these grounds. -G. Hmm... I suppose one alternative (that remains within this framework; I suppose Urgent Proposals might be a better way to go, although I would prefer a shorter deadline for the Promotor) is using the judicial result that spam scams are no longer effective anyway due to being unclear. But considering that this relaxes a lot of the other rules for distribution, I didn't think mandating a particular form was too harmful.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
G. Amend R107 by replacing: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days. with: The voting period for a decision with at least two options is secured at seven days. This is unclear. How about: Making a decision's voting period shorter than seven days is secured if the decision has at least two options.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 11:39 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: G. Amend R107 by replacing: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days. with: The voting period for a decision with at least two options is secured at seven days. This is unclear. How about: Making a decision's voting period shorter than seven days is secured if the decision has at least two options. Buggy; secured only works against changes, specifically, so it would allow a decision to be created with a short voting period. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
ais523 wrote: How about: Making a decision's voting period shorter than seven days is secured if the decision has at least two options. Buggy; secured only works against changes, specifically, so it would allow a decision to be created with a short voting period. A more direct attempt: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days, except a Rule with a power of 3 or higher explicitly states so. Maybe a power of 3 should be a power higher or equal than the power of this Rule. -- Keba
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Keba wrote: ais523 wrote: How about: Making a decision's voting period shorter than seven days is secured if the decision has at least two options. Buggy; secured only works against changes, specifically, so it would allow a decision to be created with a short voting period. A more direct attempt: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days, except a Rule with a power of 3 or higher explicitly states so. Maybe a power of 3 should be a power higher or equal than the power of this Rule. Other option. In R107, just say: The voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days. (and in the Urgent Rule) Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for an urgent proposal is 5 days. [This makes it so rules that would shorten the voting period have to not just be power-3, but have to explicitly point out that they are overriding R107). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days, except a Rule with a power of 3 or higher explicitly states so. s/except/unless
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
comex wrote: [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't all that high (if it were, this would be too chaotic), I think that BlogNomic-style immediate distribution is not only feasible, but a significant improvement over what we have now, and not too much extra work for the Assessor or voters.] Just an information for the non BlogNomic players here: BlogNomic is rather fast, some players (including IenpwIII and me) say it‘s too fast. I voted FOR many propsoals, while I might would have voted against it, because of theoretically scams, if I had more time to so so. But I would like a way to adopt *really* important Proposals fast. Maybe an Agoran decision could be created directly with 4 support and by paying 4 ergs? -- Keba
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
comex wrote: [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't all that high, I think that BlogNomic-style immediate distribution is not only feasible, but a significant improvement over what we have now, and not much extra work for the Assessor or voters.] It most certainly /would/ dump a lot of extra work on the Assessor, if only because lots of votes would be sent in response to the authors' individual ID-number-less distribution messages.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: comex wrote: [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't all that high, I think that BlogNomic-style immediate distribution is not only feasible, but a significant improvement over what we have now, and not much extra work for the Assessor or voters.] It most certainly /would/ dump a lot of extra work on the Assessor, if only because lots of votes would be sent in response to the authors' individual ID-number-less distribution messages. Well. The lack of ID numbers would basically force people to vote in replies, rather than the current situation where vote formats are everywhere on the map; and in most email clients, collecting all the replies to a given message is very easy. So to me it seems essentially easier...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go
comex wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: comex wrote: [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative effect on the game. Since the current proposal volume really isn't all that high, I think that BlogNomic-style immediate distribution is not only feasible, but a significant improvement over what we have now, and not much extra work for the Assessor or voters.] It most certainly /would/ dump a lot of extra work on the Assessor, if only because lots of votes would be sent in response to the authors' individual ID-number-less distribution messages. Well. The lack of ID numbers would basically force people to vote in replies, rather than the current situation where vote formats are everywhere on the map; and in most email clients, collecting all the replies to a given message is very easy. So to me it seems essentially easier... Hmm, I suppose I could write a new enter-votes form as enter several people's votes on one proposal (or multiple proposals, if they were distributed in one message) rather than the current enter one person's votes on several proposals. (I'd still want a form because the Assessor DB auto-calculates voting limits and F/A totals.) The DB wouldn't record votes mid-voting-period, but it doesn't always do that now anyway (depends how often I process mail), and it /would/ still record them after the fact (for various forms of trend analysis).
