DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
I think Rule 2509 is relevant here? 'A "number of (items)", where (items) is a set of discrete entities, is considered to refer to a non-negative integer, unless otherwise explicitly specified.' -Aris On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 12:58 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/1/24 15:20, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > The minimum is 0 just because of how paying fees work. You can't > possibly create spendies or anything. > > > Actually, the fee-based actions rules don't have any special cases for > negative values, and you can't destroy a negative number of assets. So I > think if the required fee is negative, it's just not possible to do (and > this is... not a crazy outcome policy-wise?). > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 6/1/24 17:25, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/1/24 3:57 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > >> Actually, the fee-based actions rules don't have any special cases for >> negative values, and you can't destroy a negative number of assets. So I >> think if the required fee is negative, it's just not possible to do (and >> this is... not a crazy outcome policy-wise?). > Looking at the rules again after what snail said, I think it's in rule 2577 > (Asset Actions) instead, where it effectively floors it at zero... > >When a rule indicates creating, destroying, or transferring an >amount of assets that is not a natural number, the specified >amount is rounded up to the nearest natural number after all other >calculations. > Ah, yes, sorry, I forgot about that. Then yes, it would be floored at 0. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 6/1/24 3:57 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: Actually, the fee-based actions rules don't have any special cases for negative values, and you can't destroy a negative number of assets. So I think if the required fee is negative, it's just not possible to do (and this is... not a crazy outcome policy-wise?). Looking at the rules again after what snail said, I think it's in rule 2577 (Asset Actions) instead, where it effectively floors it at zero... When a rule indicates creating, destroying, or transferring an amount of assets that is not a natural number, the specified amount is rounded up to the nearest natural number after all other calculations. -- Mischief
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 6/1/24 14:20, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > The minimum is 0 just because of how paying fees work. You can't possibly > create spendies or anything. > >> On Jun 1, 2024, at 6:08 AM, Mischief via agora-business >> wrote: >> >> >> Additionally, I just realized there's no minimum on X-2 calculation... I >> also change my vote to AGAINST on 9115. >> >> -- >> Mischief >> > > -- > snail There's no minimum in the proposal tho. which there should be. It should be 1. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 6/1/24 7:07 AM, Mischief wrote: On 5/31/24 7:26 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: On 5/26/24 21:33, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: On 5/25/24 13:39, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: 9115~ snail 2.0 Lode Stone Well: I change my vote on the referendum on Proposal 9115 to AGAINST. There is no "once" limiting the transfer. Additionally, I just realized there's no minimum on X-2 calculation... I also change my vote to AGAINST on 9115. Drat, that might have been 15 minutes too late... -- Mischief
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 5/28/24 16:16, Matt Smyth via agora-business wrote: > Oh - does it still count cus I updated the spreadsheet? The spreadsheet has no legal effect - it doesn't override messages sent to the lists. Tho, you may be able to argue it impacts the context? A bit unlikely imo. It would be most effective to repost your votes more clearly. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
Oh - does it still count cus I updated the spreadsheet? On Tue, 28 May 2024, 11:13 pm Janet Cobb via agora-business, < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/27/24 19:12, Matt Smyth via agora-business wrote: > > I vote as such: > > vote as follows: > >>> 9114~ snail 2.0 Grind Stone > > FOR > >> > >> > >>> 9115~ snail 2.0 Lode Stone > > FOR > >>> 9116~ snail, juan...[1] 1.0 A friendly game v2 > > FOR > >>> 9117~ Mischief1.0 Self-Elimination > >> PRESENT > >> > >> > >>> 9118~ juniper 1.0 Recursion > >> AGAINST > >> > >> > >>> 9119* Mischief3.0 Say It Once Mk II > >> FOR > >> > >> -- > > juniper :3 > > > It's unclear whether some of these work, since they ended up in the > quoted part of your message. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
... whoops On Sun, 26 May 2024 at 11:43, 4st nomic <4st.no...@gmail.com> wrote: > > sorry Juniper, this was to DIS, make sure you send votes to BUS > > On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 6:42 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion > wrote: >> >> I vote as follows: >> >> > >> > > 9114~ snail 2.0 Grind Stone >> > >> FOR >> >> > >> > >> > >> > > 9115~ snail 2.0 Lode Stone >> > >> >> FOR >> >> > >> > > 9116~ snail, juan...[1] 1.0 A friendly game v2 >> > >> FOR >> >> > >> > > 9117~ Mischief1.0 Self-Elimination >> > >> > PRESENT >> > >> > >> > > 9118~ juniper 1.0 Recursion >> > >> > AGAINST >> > >> > >> > > 9119* Mischief3.0 Say It Once Mk II >> > >> > FOR >> > >> > -- >> > Janet Cobb >> > >> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >> > > > > > -- > apathy (4ˢᵗ) > wearing Jester's Cap > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
sorry Juniper, this was to DIS, make sure you send votes to BUS On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 6:42 PM Matt Smyth via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I vote as follows: > > > > > > 9114~ snail 2.0 Grind Stone > > > FOR > > > > > > > > > > 9115~ snail 2.0 Lode Stone > > > > FOR > > > > > > 9116~ snail, juan...[1] 1.0 A friendly game v2 > > > FOR > > > > > > 9117~ Mischief1.0 Self-Elimination > > > > PRESENT > > > > > > > 9118~ juniper 1.0 Recursion > > > > AGAINST > > > > > > > 9119* Mischief3.0 Say It Once Mk II > > > > FOR > > > > -- > > Janet Cobb > > > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > > -- apathy (4ˢᵗ) wearing Jester's Cap Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
I vote as follows: > > > 9114~ snail 2.0 Grind Stone > FOR > > > > > 9115~ snail 2.0 Lode Stone > FOR > > > 9116~ snail, juan...[1] 1.0 A friendly game v2 > FOR > > > 9117~ Mischief1.0 Self-Elimination > > PRESENT > > > > 9118~ juniper 1.0 Recursion > > AGAINST > > > > 9119* Mischief3.0 Say It Once Mk II > > FOR > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
> > > > 9118~ juniper 1.0 Recursion > > PRESENT (for the moment) > > I'm not following the train of thought for why the proposed rule wouldn't > work. To me it reads like a sequence of events: 1) a player creates a > proposal; 2) e does not vote for it; 3) it passes. (The proposed rule has > steps 2 and 3 in the reverse order just by the flow of the sentence.) > "Passes" isn't defined in the rules, but it has a clear everyday meaning > and the SLR and FLR both literally list "Highest ID'd Proposal Passed" at > the beginning. > > - I'm not sure that "vote for eir own proposal" is equivalent to "vote FOR eir own proposal" - I believe that it's not using the correct verbal tenses to express what it means. (I might be wrong, but I'm currently under that impression) Aside from that, and that I should've also noted, is that it seems to put the onus of keeping track of this on the Spendor, because the result just automatically happens and the Spendor is compelled to keep the spendies records straight. I don't believe that the Spendor should have to suddenly concern themselves with checking every Proposal voting table just to check for this. It should probably be an action By Announcement.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 5/25/24 7:05 AM, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: 9119* Mischief3.0 Say It Once Mk II PRESENT, I am not aware of the full implications of this change. It's meant to remove a redundancy. Rule 1950 secures Adoption Index twice... Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. ... Adoption index is secured with a Power Threshold of 2. As far as I can tell, "secured at power 2" and "secured with a Power Threshold of 2" mean the same thing. -- Mischief
