DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Roger Hicks wrote: BobTHJ votes as follows: 4947 - FOR 4948 - FOR 4949 - FOR 4950 - FOR 4951 - FOR 4952 - AGAINST 4953 - FOR 4954 - AGAINST 4955 - AGAINST 4956 - FOR 4957 - AGAINST 1 - has BobTHJ actually registered yet? (I believe thats in CFJ) 2 - if BobTHJ did register, didn't registration happen after the proposals in question were distributed?
DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Maud wrote: > By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a > ``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable > public agreement on which persons are eligible''. Therefore, the > class of eligible voters is set when the decision is initiated and > cannot be changed unless specific rules permit it. The "class" of eligible voters may (or may not) be "all current players and all persons who register during the voting period." There is nothing in the above clause preventing this interpretation. The act of registration (which makes a person into an eligble voter) might be seen as specifically "permitting" a change during a voting period. I note that no proposal distribution recently has had a list or description, perhaps listing a proposal as "O" or "D" is sufficient in many circumstances to enable public agreement, but not in this case. Your opinion may be right (I'm not convinced either way), but I don't think your above argument supports it as strongly as you think. =Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Maud wrote:
> Now, I know we've been following a judicial path lately, but in this
> case we ought to pursue a legislative solution, even if only to make
> the rules clear.
There are many cases where a concise legislative solution is perferrable,
even in a "judicial" game. This is one of them.
In general, a judicial game (to me) is where we take away over-exact
mechanistic procedures and replace them with terms like "reasonable" or
"sufficient" or "severe" or "preponderance", or allow the rules to
contain and be interpreted meaningfully with respect to broad,
overarching philosophical principles ("rights" or "persons").
It has nothing to do with desiring impeneratable or self-conflicting
rules for the sole purpose of invoking judgement to unsnarl tangles,
when a rule change could easily clarify matters.
-Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Maud wrote: > Since adopting a proposal is an Agoran decision, every notice of > proposal distribution which omits a description of the class of > eligible voters is invalid. An Agoran decision is not actually > initiated except by a valid notice. See rule 107. We are now splintering into two separate issues. Proposal distributions in memory have not contained such information. Are they all invalid? I would say no, as R107 states: > (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to > enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. The question is, in this context, what is evidence of "public agreement"? This is not the same as an R101 agreement that required willful consent. I would say the standard of "CFJ indicates lack of agreement" is a reasonable one. Maud wrote: > By the default in rule 106, the eligible voters are the active > players. But this may be defined continuously throughout the voting period. We now have a lack of agreement for this particular distribution. Perhaps, what has really happened is the raising of this issue has caused a distinct (after the fact) lack of agreement on what constitutes the eligible voters, which means the distribution itself did not contain sufficient information (in this case) which means this distribution (but not prior ones, where there was no such disagreement in evidence!) was invald. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Zefram wrote: > I don't agree with your adoption of the R991 criterion, at least as > sole criterion for determining public agreement. You can read R991 such > that submission of a CFJ (even if the CFJ is later dismissed or refused) > proves a lack of public agreement, but I think lack of public agreement > can be determined in other ways also. You are right. There are many ways to show lack of agreement. A CFJ is one, a simple (public) request for correction might be another. However, a good standard (for the good of the game where silence, etc.) might be: "If there was no specific disagreement expressed during the 2034 cutoff window, it is reasonable to assume that the formal distribution format for proposals, in combination with nearby herald reports on players, etc., provided sufficient criterion for public agreement on who was eligible." Hey! That's a judicial game again, defining "reasonable" tests for cutoff windows and evidence of disputes (and what contextual information from other reports satisfies "sufficient" information). -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
quazie wrote: >1 - has BobTHJ actually registered yet? (I believe thats in CFJ) E is definitely registered now. CFJ only concerns time of registration, the two options differing by about eight hours. >2 - if BobTHJ did register, didn't registration happen after the >proposals in question were distributed? Yes. The earlier possible registration date is some sixteen hours after the proposal distribution. However, on a quick scan I don't see the rules explicitly stating at what point voter eligibility is to be determined. Eligibility only takes effect in R683, speaking of ballot submission. If there's no prior judicial decision to the contrary, I'd say eligibility is determined at the time of submission. Voting limits are explicitly determined as of the start of the voting period, and R1950 clearly makes BobTHJ's VLDP and VLOP both one if e is an eligible voter. Voting limits are used at the end of the voting period, or possibly at the time results are announced, (R1950 third para) so I think it's possible to read R1950 as judging voter eligibility at that time for the purposes of applicability of its first two paragraphs. The rules are unclear on the voting limits of an ineligible voter. This would be an issue if BobTHJ is an eligible voter for the purpose of casting votes but eir ineligibility at the start of the voting period makes the first two paragraphs of R1950 inapplicable. Anyone fancy another group of massively-linked CFJs? -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
1. I understand my registration may be under dispute. However, if the CFJ returns in my favor, shouldn't my votes be counted? 2. I can't find anything in the rules stating that my votes are invalid simply because my registration occurred after proposals were distributed. If I'm missing something please let me know. I'm not super familiar with the ruleset yet. BobTHJ On 5/4/07, quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: > BobTHJ votes as follows: > > 4947 - FOR > 4948 - FOR > 4949 - FOR > 4950 - FOR > 4951 - FOR > 4952 - AGAINST > 4953 - FOR > 4954 - AGAINST > 4955 - AGAINST > 4956 - FOR > 4957 - AGAINST > > 1 - has BobTHJ actually registered yet? (I believe thats in CFJ) 2 - if BobTHJ did register, didn't registration happen after the proposals in question were distributed?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Roger Hicks wrote: >1. I understand my registration may be under dispute. However, if the CFJ >returns in my favor, shouldn't my votes be counted? Yes, that's the way it works. We often have official reports track actions of questioned legality, noted as being subject to CFJ. I said in my previous message that you're definitely registered and only the timing is in doubt. I see now that your second registration message, the one that went "I hereby register for Agora Nomic.", was actually sent to the discussion forum, not the public forum, and so was definitely not effective. I suggest that you post to the PF (agora-business) now, stating clearly that you register. Then resend your votes, also to the PF. >2. I can't find anything in the rules stating that my votes are invalid >simply because my registration occurred after proposals were distributed. It's complicated. Voting limits are calculated as of the start of the voting period. Probably eligibility is intended to be too, but the rules aren't clear on that. I dissected this in my previous message. Registrations are, I'm afraid, quite often this eventful. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Roger Hicks wrote: >I hereby submit the following CFJ: That's the spirit! By the way, submitting a CFJ is legal even if you're not a player, which is just as well with your registration still uncertain. But unfortunately that uncertainty does mean that your CFJ doesn't only hinge on the eligibility rules, and also depends on your playerhood which is subject to an earlier CFJ. If you take my suggestion to register unambiguously now, you'll want to resumbit your CFJ after registering too. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
On 5/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Anyone fancy another group of massively-linked CFJs? I don't think that will be necessary. By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a ``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible''. Therefore, the class of eligible voters is set when the decision is initiated and cannot be changed unless specific rules permit it. By rule 683 (a), a ballot is invalid if it is not submitted by an eligible voter. By rule 955 (b), the vote collector only counts valid ballots when determining the will of Agora, so the voting limit of an ineligible voter is irrelevant. As you point out, rule 1950 indicates that voting limits are determined at the time the decision is initiated. Of course, this only affects players who were eligible when the voting period started. As I argued above, these are the only players who can submit valid ballots on the decision. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) If anyone has ideas or thinks this is laudable or stupid please do chime in. -- Riail, in agora-discussion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Well, then it appears I submitted an invalid ballot. Such is life. On 5/4/07, Michael Slone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 5/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyone fancy another group of massively-linked CFJs? I don't think that will be necessary. By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a ``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible''. Therefore, the class of eligible voters is set when the decision is initiated and cannot be changed unless specific rules permit it. By rule 683 (a), a ballot is invalid if it is not submitted by an eligible voter. By rule 955 (b), the vote collector only counts valid ballots when determining the will of Agora, so the voting limit of an ineligible voter is irrelevant. As you point out, rule 1950 indicates that voting limits are determined at the time the decision is initiated. Of course, this only affects players who were eligible when the voting period started. As I argued above, these are the only players who can submit valid ballots on the decision. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) If anyone has ideas or thinks this is laudable or stupid please do chime in. -- Riail, in agora-discussion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
On 5/4/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, then it appears I submitted an invalid ballot. Such is life. Well, this points up two problems with the current rules: (1) it's too hard to tell who is eligible to vote; and (2) people who join in the middle of the voting period can't vote. Now, I know we've been following a judicial path lately, but in this case we ought to pursue a legislative solution, even if only to make the rules clear. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) Sorry about that. -- root, in agora-discussion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Michael Slone wrote: >By rule 107 (b), the notice initiating an Agoran decision must give a >``description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable >public agreement on which persons are eligible''. Therefore, the >class of eligible voters is set when the decision is initiated and >cannot be changed unless specific rules permit it. I'm not at all convinced by that reading. A class description, such as "the active players", can be interpreted at many different times, such as when a ballot is cast and at the end of the voting period, and in each case be sufficient for public agreement. R107 does not say that the publicly-agreed set of eligible persons must be the same at all times. The remainder of your argument falls if your initial interpretation of R107 falls. But it does highlight that the other rules appear to have been written with the assumption that there is exactly one set of eligible voters per decision. I note, in passing, that we don't in practice require the notice defined by R107 to be explicit. In the past four months that I've been registered, not a single proposal distribution has explicated the set of eligible voters or the identity of the vote collector, nor contained any formula explicating intent to initiate an Agoran decision. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Michael Slone wrote: >(2) people who join in the middle of the voting period can't vote. This could be construed as a feature. I thought it was intended as one. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
On 5/4/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The "class" of eligible voters may (or may not) be "all current players and all persons who register during the voting period." There is nothing in the above clause preventing this interpretation. The act of registration (which makes a person into an eligble voter) might be seen as specifically "permitting" a change during a voting period. By the default in rule 106, the eligible voters are the active players. I note that no proposal distribution recently has had a list or description, perhaps listing a proposal as "O" or "D" is sufficient in many circumstances to enable public agreement, but not in this case. Since adopting a proposal is an Agoran decision, every notice of proposal distribution which omits a description of the class of eligible voters is invalid. An Agoran decision is not actually initiated except by a valid notice. See rule 107. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) Thanks for playing. Tell your friends! -- OscarMeyr, in agora-discussion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
On 5/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I note, in passing, that we don't in practice require the notice defined by R107 to be explicit. The rules do not vanish when we choose to ignore them. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) I think someone has a comprehension problem here. I don't think it's me. -- Kelly, in agora-discussion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Michael Slone wrote: >The rules do not vanish when we choose to ignore them. Quite so, but we have a history of allowing paraphrases and implicitudes. If you seriously doubt the efficacy of present proposal distributions, please CFJ on it. Related question: if Agoran decisions have not been properly initiated on proposals for the past few months, does the last paragraph of R2034 still manage to make the result announcements effective? -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Kerim Aydin wrote: >means this distribution (but not prior ones, where there was no >such disagreement in evidence!) was invald. Curious argument. I never read "sufficient to enable ..." that way before. It would mean that the null description, as has previously been used, would be sufficient if publicly accepted as sufficient, even if it is judged that the R107(b) notice must be explicit. I don't agree with your adoption of the R991 criterion, at least as sole criterion for determining public agreement. You can read R991 such that submission of a CFJ (even if the CFJ is later dismissed or refused) proves a lack of public agreement, but I think lack of public agreement can be determined in other ways also. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Kerim Aydin wrote: >We now have a lack of agreement for this particular distribution. R107 doesn't say when the public have to agree on the set of eligible voters. I think we were all in agreement on who was eligible at the start of the voting period. If eligibility for a decision can change over time, I think R107 only requires the class description to be sufficient for public agreemennt at the time the initiation notice is published. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Wow will every official post I make spark this much controversy? This could be quite exciting :) BobTHJ On 5/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Michael Slone wrote: >The rules do not vanish when we choose to ignore them. Quite so, but we have a history of allowing paraphrases and implicitudes. If you seriously doubt the efficacy of present proposal distributions, please CFJ on it. Related question: if Agoran decisions have not been properly initiated on proposals for the past few months, does the last paragraph of R2034 still manage to make the result announcements effective? -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
On 5/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Related question: if Agoran decisions have not been properly initiated on proposals for the past few months, does the last paragraph of R2034 still manage to make the result announcements effective? Rule 2034 does seem to apply here, and to any other Agoran decision, valid or not, whose success in resolution is not challenged within seven days. If I get time to craft a decent CFJ on the recent distribution, I will, since it would be nice to see this resolved. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) That made me spill coffee from my nose, THANKS! -- Manu, in agora-discussion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
On 5/5/07, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Wow will every official post I make spark this much controversy? This could be quite exciting :) It's possible, but let's hope not. While controversy is fine, there is also merit in actually playing the game! (Of course, for some people, the controversy *is* the game.) -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) Eris and Goethe gone? This officially SUCKS. -- Sherlock, in agora-discussion
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Votes 4947-4957
Maud wrote: On 5/4/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Related question: if Agoran decisions have not been properly initiated on proposals for the past few months, does the last paragraph of R2034 still manage to make the result announcements effective? Rule 2034 does seem to apply here, and to any other Agoran decision, valid or not, whose success in resolution is not challenged within seven days. The question is whether R2034 extends to the question of whether there was an Agoran decision to resolve in the first place. I hold with the "null specification is sufficient as long as no one questions it" camp, as I think it's (1) a reasonable interpretation and (2) avoids having to recalculate a significant chunk of gamestate.
