Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: restricted distribution
On 31 October 2014 00:14, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: The Rulekeepor, Speaker and Prime Minister each have a spending power of 2. The Promotor has a spending power of 4. Changes to imminence and spending power both are secured. Set the spending power of the Promotor to 3. Are these two last numbers intended to be different, and if so, won't the one in an actual Rule take precedence? Greetings, Ørjan. Curses! No, the second one is intended to be cut.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: restricted distribution
On 30 October 2014 18:07, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: I retract the proposal Restricted distribution. I submit the following proposal (an edited version): [...] I didn't come up with any good solution for the rule about not changing the attribute of proposals after their creation. I think it might be fine. -- Tiger
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: restricted distribution
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: I retract the proposal Restricted distribution. I submit the following proposal (an edited version): Still contains the swich typo. Regarding the attributes thing, since this proposal is already AI 3, can't you just make a simple wording change in R2350? (its text and other aforementioned attributes cannot be changed or some such)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: restricted distribution
On 30 October 2014 19:05, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: I retract the proposal Restricted distribution. I submit the following proposal (an edited version): Still contains the swich typo. Regarding the attributes thing, since this proposal is already AI 3, can't you just make a simple wording change in R2350? (its text and other aforementioned attributes cannot be changed or some such) Yeah, that would work!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: restricted distribution
On 27 October 2014 20:59, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal Pool at any time. The Promotor SHALL not distribute proposals which are not pending. SHALL NOT Oops, thanks for noticing. Imminence is a swich, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either pending or not pending (default). switch, and does this count as an attribute for the purpose of Once a proposal is created, none of its attributes can be changed. ? Interesting. I want it to not be, obviously. Under the current rules we treat pending-ness as not being such an attribute. Making it a switch does make it more tangible, but Rule 2350 is unclear on what these properties are. It sort of reads like it was intended to include only the listed properties (name, authors, AI), but at the same time never makes that explicit. Would anything important be lost by changing Once a proposal is created, none of its attributes can be changed to Once a proposal is created, none of these attributes can be changed? (The previous paragraph is the list of attributes.) Would anything important be lost by removing that sentence completely? Any player CAN spend 20 points to make a proposal pending. Any player CAN spend 10 points to make a proposal e did not author or co-author pending. by announcement I had a vague memory of a rule which said that a CAN without mechanism was treated as CAN by announcement, but there is no such rule. Was there ever? Anyway, I will fix. Spending power is a natural office switch tracked by the IADoP. Its default value is 1. The holder of an office CAN make a proposal pending; e can do this a number of times each Agoran week not exceeding the spending power of that office. by announcement At the end of each Agoran week, the Promotor's spending power becomes 1 plus the number of offices whose spending power sat completely unused the preceding week. Annoying to track, I think. Yeah, you might be right. Changes to imminence and pending power both are secured. Spending power. And secured at power 1? Yes, at power 1. Do you think that's too low, or just that it should be spelled out? If we have defined defaults (the power of the rule), we should use them, is my thinking. -- Tiger
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: restricted distribution
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: Would anything important be lost by changing Once a proposal is created, none of its attributes can be changed to Once a proposal is created, none of these attributes can be changed? (The previous paragraph is the list of attributes.) Would anything important be lost by removing that sentence completely? The main purpose of that clause is to prevent low-powered dictatorships from changing the text of higher-AI proposals after they've been voted on. by announcement I had a vague memory of a rule which said that a CAN without mechanism was treated as CAN by announcement, but there is no such rule. Was there ever? Anyway, I will fix. IIRC there was a CFJ about this recently, but good form is to have 'by announcement'. Yes, at power 1. Do you think that's too low, or just that it should be spelled out? If we have defined defaults (the power of the rule), we should use them, is my thinking. It's pretty useless, because it would only have an effect against power1 rules or proposals, which cannot exist per Rules 2141 and 1950, respectively.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: restricted distribution
On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 19:49 +, omd wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn I had a vague memory of a rule which said that a CAN without mechanism was treated as CAN by announcement, but there is no such rule. Was there ever? Anyway, I will fix. IIRC there was a CFJ about this recently, but good form is to have 'by announcement'. For others following along at home, that's CFJ 3425, judged by G.: On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 20:46 +, Kerim Aydin wrote: Note that this is not directly and officially by announcement exactly, as the last paragraph of R478 reserves that for cases where CAN by announcement is actually stated. Instead, the attempt is performed by announcement, which then causes the action to succeed. So, strictly and technically speaking, the attempt is by announcement, and the attempt causes the action to succeed, but that's not *quite* the same as the action being performed by announcement.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: restricted distribution
On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Eritivus wrote: On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 19:49 +, omd wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn I had a vague memory of a rule which said that a CAN without mechanism was treated as CAN by announcement, but there is no such rule. Was there ever? Anyway, I will fix. IIRC there was a CFJ about this recently, but good form is to have 'by announcement'. For others following along at home, that's CFJ 3425, judged by G.: On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 20:46 +, Kerim Aydin wrote: Note that this is not directly and officially by announcement exactly, as the last paragraph of R478 reserves that for cases where CAN by announcement is actually stated. Instead, the attempt is performed by announcement, which then causes the action to succeed. So, strictly and technically speaking, the attempt is by announcement, and the attempt causes the action to succeed, but that's not *quite* the same as the action being performed by announcement. Note that my interpretation leaves other avenues open. If something could be seen as an attempt to do something, it is successful. For example, if you attempt to send something to the PF, and you send it to Discussion by accident... that's still an attempt. Maybe. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: restricted distribution
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal Pool at any time. The Promotor SHALL not distribute proposals which are not pending. SHALL NOT Imminence is a swich, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either pending or not pending (default). switch, and does this count as an attribute for the purpose of Once a proposal is created, none of its attributes can be changed. ? Any player CAN spend 20 points to make a proposal pending. Any player CAN spend 10 points to make a proposal e did not author or co-author pending. by announcement Spending power is a natural office switch tracked by the IADoP. Its default value is 1. The holder of an office CAN make a proposal pending; e can do this a number of times each Agoran week not exceeding the spending power of that office. by announcement At the end of each Agoran week, the Promotor's spending power becomes 1 plus the number of offices whose spending power sat completely unused the preceding week. Annoying to track, I think. Changes to imminence and pending power both are secured. Spending power. And secured at power 1?
