Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 13:19, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, here are my intended rewrites: > > 11. For the purposes of Buy and Sell Tickets, if the specified action > is to vote in a certain manner on an Agoran decision, a party only > fills eir obligation to take the specified action if eir valid > votes at the end of that decision's voting period are in the > manner described in the ticket. In particular, the number of such > votes shall equal eir voting limit on that decision, unless both > parties agree on a lower limit no later than the time the ticket > is filled. > > 13. A Sell Ticket to vote in a certain manner on an Agoran decision > also constitutes conditionally voting to endorse the filler (or as > otherwise directed by the filler) a number of times equal to one's > voting limit on that decision, or PRESENT (or as otherwise > specified by the poster) if the ticket is not filled. > > Having thought about this some more, I think the "SELL(5VP) x 5" form > is too inherently confusing to be worth trying to salvage. The intended > changes should allow e.g. > "(Sell Ticket 1VP: cast one vote as directed) x 5" > for selling votes individually, while still allowing > "Sell Ticket 5VP: vote as directed" > to sell one's entire block at once. > I'd really like to see the SELL(X-Y) format preserved for the purpose of casting all votes. It makes it so simple. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
I wrote: > root wrote: > >> BobTHJ's exact vote was "SELL(5VP) x5". This is five sell tickets, >> each corresponding to a single vote, not one sell ticket corresponding >> to five votes. However, ais523 only filled one of these tickets: "I >> fill BobTHJ's open sell ticket on proposal 5707, causing em to endorse >> me on that vote and therefore vote SELLx5." > > This needs to be clarified in the Vote Market agreement. I don't know > whether my intent-in-progress would succeed in doing so, I'll have to > review that later when I have more time. Okay, here are my intended rewrites: 11. For the purposes of Buy and Sell Tickets, if the specified action is to vote in a certain manner on an Agoran decision, a party only fills eir obligation to take the specified action if eir valid votes at the end of that decision's voting period are in the manner described in the ticket. In particular, the number of such votes shall equal eir voting limit on that decision, unless both parties agree on a lower limit no later than the time the ticket is filled. 13. A Sell Ticket to vote in a certain manner on an Agoran decision also constitutes conditionally voting to endorse the filler (or as otherwise directed by the filler) a number of times equal to one's voting limit on that decision, or PRESENT (or as otherwise specified by the poster) if the ticket is not filled. Having thought about this some more, I think the "SELL(5VP) x 5" form is too inherently confusing to be worth trying to salvage. The intended changes should allow e.g. "(Sell Ticket 1VP: cast one vote as directed) x 5" for selling votes individually, while still allowing "Sell Ticket 5VP: vote as directed" to sell one's entire block at once.
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > Especially with democratization in play, root's vote is > unambiguous: SELL (5 VP - AGAINST) x 3, unbought, thus > (due to democratization) a single AGAINST. That's the last thing it is given a collection of (some fairly disinterested) parties argue for either interpretation. -Goethe
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root wrote: > BobTHJ's exact vote was "SELL(5VP) x5". This is five sell tickets, > each corresponding to a single vote, not one sell ticket corresponding > to five votes. However, ais523 only filled one of these tickets: "I > fill BobTHJ's open sell ticket on proposal 5707, causing em to endorse > me on that vote and therefore vote SELLx5." This needs to be clarified in the Vote Market agreement. I don't know whether my intent-in-progress would succeed in doing so, I'll have to review that later when I have more time.
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:41, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CoE: The publisher of the above CoE is not the Assessor. (The assessor > didn't publish the original document, so e can't usefully deny CoEs on > it anyways.) > > I don't think that's a genuine CoE (it's not obvious what it's referring to), > but the document was published by the Monster deputising for the Assessor. > The Assessor SHALL deny or admit CoEs against eir reports, so the Monster can > deputise to deny or admit a CoE. It's a CoE against the statement's self-ratifying claim as to who published it. Anyways, you can't deputise for that because the Assessor did not publish the original document, so e is not obliged to respond to CoEs against it. The assessor's deputy, the Monster, probably is, however. -woggle
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
CoE: The publisher of the above CoE is not the Assessor. (The assessor didn't publish the original document, so e can't usefully deny CoEs on it anyways.) I don't think that's a genuine CoE (it's not obvious what it's referring to), but the document was published by the Monster deputising for the Assessor. The Assessor SHALL deny or admit CoEs against eir reports, so the Monster can deputise to deny or admit a CoE. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> root: >>> False dilemma. It's also possible that your interpretation is wrong, >>> in which case the proposal fails. >> At least two people came up with that interpretation in good faith. It >> certainly isn't unambiguously wrong. > > It's possible to misunderstand something without it being ambiguous. FWIW I interpreted BobTHJ's ticket the same way ais523 and BobTHJ did (before the controversy, I was counting votes) without a second thought. I didn't notice/pay attention to root's, after the fact its intent is completely ambiguous to me (although it's an unfair comparison; I'm forming the impression after knowing the nature of the controversy). -Goethe
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Alexander Smith wrote: > Goethe: >> In this case of disagreement between parties (root vs. ais523) then you have >> to >> go to strict impartial logical interpretation etc. > > I thought you were a fan of equity? Besides, this is a case where a dispute > in the meaning of a contract affects something that should be determined > entirely by the rules. Um, I am. But in the case that an offer of transaction has a range of completely different interpretations by the transacting parties, each with different real effects, one interpretation has to be picked at some stage. Only after it is picked can equity be determined. And equity of course is never perfect; in particular in this case, the result of the vote on this specific proposal was worth the most, and finding a "compensation" that makes up for it (whichever side prevails) is difficult. So that first decision falls to a matter of fact and there will be a loser (who might get an equity consolation prize).-Goethe
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
Goethe: > In this case of disagreement between parties (root vs. ais523) then you have > to > go to strict impartial logical interpretation etc. I thought you were a fan of equity? Besides, this is a case where a dispute in the meaning of a contract affects something that should be determined entirely by the rules. As a completely different argument, it's arguable that a vote of SELL can work simply because the resulting tickets don't specify an action and thus aren't actually sell tickets, by the definition of sell tickets. This would lead to a vote to endorse the filler of a non-existent ticket, or voting the default in the case that the ticket is not filled. As the ticket does not exist, it cannot be filled, yet it cannot be in an unfilled state either, so neither vote ever happens. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:50, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Contracts aren't algebra. Perhaps we should hear from BobTHJ about intent. >> -G. >> > FWIW my intent was to sell all 5 of my votes for a total of 5VP. > > BobTHJ If the two parties (ais523 and BobTHJ) in an exchange governed by a contract agree to an interpretation of an ambiguous transaction, and the interpretation is within the realm of reason (a possible reasonable interpretation) it should be honored. In this case of disagreement between parties (root vs. ais523) then you have to go to strict impartial logical interpretation etc. -Goethe
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > root: >> False dilemma. It's also possible that your interpretation is wrong, >> in which case the proposal fails. > At least two people came up with that interpretation in good faith. It > certainly isn't unambiguously wrong. It's possible to misunderstand something without it being ambiguous. -root
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root: > False dilemma. It's also possible that your interpretation is wrong, > in which case the proposal fails. At least two people came up with that interpretation in good faith. It certainly isn't unambiguously wrong. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well my argument is that as many people put a different interpretation on it, > you can't claim that you are /unambiguously/ correct; BobTHJ and I both went > with a different, entirely reasonable, interpretation of the abbreviation. > Either your interpretation is wrong, or it is ambiguous which interpretation > is correct; in both cases, the proposal passes. False dilemma. It's also possible that your interpretation is wrong, in which case the proposal fails. -root
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root: > No, my argument is that it's a conditional vote that, per the > contract, creates a sell ticket when cast. Well my argument is that as many people put a different interpretation on it, you can't claim that you are /unambiguously/ correct; BobTHJ and I both went with a different, entirely reasonable, interpretation of the abbreviation. Either your interpretation is wrong, or it is ambiguous which interpretation is correct; in both cases, the proposal passes. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SELL(5VP) does two things: it creates a sell ticket, and it casts a vote. > Your argument, that SELL (5VP) is a conditional vote, would create the sell > ticket at the time the proposal is resolved, which is clearly absurd. No, my argument is that it's a conditional vote that, per the contract, creates a sell ticket when cast. -root
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Contracts aren't algebra. Perhaps we should hear from BobTHJ about intent. > -G. I realize that. I was only casting it that way because ais523 was insisting on interpreting the vote as an algebraic expression to be parsed. -root
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:50, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Contracts aren't algebra. Perhaps we should hear from BobTHJ about intent. > -G. > FWIW my intent was to sell all 5 of my votes for a total of 5VP. BobTHJ
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root wrote: > It's not a macro. The agreement clearly refers to SELL(5VP) as being > a conditional vote. In that case, it has to be able to /retroactively/ create a sell ticket at the time the voting period ends. Does the act of casting the vote create a sell ticket? Voting and creating sell tickets are two different things. SELL(5VP) does two things: it creates a sell ticket, and it casts a vote. Your argument, that SELL (5VP) is a conditional vote, would create the sell ticket at the time the proposal is resolved, which is clearly absurd. Clearly, SELL(5VP) is an abbreviation for doing something more than just voting, it's an action that creates a sell ticket and endorses the filler of that ticket. In other words, it is a macro. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> root: >>> FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not >>> for casting a single vote of FOO x 3. >> >> Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't >> explain whether "FOO" is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a >> result, your vote probably fails altogether due to the ambiguity, as does >> BobTHJ's. > > To put it in algebraic terms, "FOO" expands to a vote. The > multiplication multiplies the number of votes. I don't see what's > ambiguous about that. Contracts aren't algebra. Perhaps we should hear from BobTHJ about intent. -G.
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > root: >> To put it in algebraic terms, "FOO" expands to a vote. The >> multiplication multiplies the number of votes. I don't see what's >> ambiguous about that. > The fact that FOO might not be a constant. It's ambiguous whether you're > multiplying the result of the expansion of one mention of FOO, or if you're > generating 5 separate copies of FOO, which isn't even a vote. > > Let me expand BobTHJ's sell ticket literally, fixing the grammar: > > "[I] post[ing] a Sell > Ticket with a cost of 5VP and vot[e/ing] to endorse the filler of that > ticket x5" > > Notice where the x5 ends up after the expansion. That looks awfully to me > like voting x5, based on one Sell Ticket. > > The ambiguity is in whether the SELL(5VP) or the x5 is expanded first. You > seem to think the x5 is expanded first, but I still can't see any evidence > for this view. It's not a macro. The agreement clearly refers to SELL(5VP) as being a conditional vote. -root
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The ambiguity is in whether the SELL(5VP) or the x5 is expanded first. You > seem to think the x5 is expanded first, but I still can't see any evidence > for this view. VOTE x 5 is, by game custom, shorthand for I perform the action of casting the vote VOTE 5 times. Section 13 of the vote market agreement says that a vote a of SELL means the voter posts a sell ticket and conditionally endorses the filler of the ticket. So BobTHJ, in casting 5 votes of SELL, posted 5 SELL tickets, casting votes conditionally endorsing the filler of each. By Rule 2127, endorsing another voter counts as casting "a vote", not the maximum number of allowable votes, on the decision in question. BobTHJ is probably in breach of Section 11 of the Vote Market since e failed to cast a number of votes equal to eir voting limit, but that's a matter for the equity courts.
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Er, I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. If multiple tickets were created, filling one would be sufficient to require the voter to vote to eir limit. If two such tickets were filled with different options, e'd be in trouble. -- hopefully minor evil
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Fails, the decision in question didn't exist when woggle attempted to >>> democratise it, so eir action failed due to not clearly specifying what >>> it was talking about. >> >> How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of >> the proposal it intended to democritize? >> >> I call for judgement, barring ais523, on "Proposal 5707 is a >> democratic proposal." > > I agree with ais523, though it's not really a matter of clarity. Per > R1728, "A player authorized to perform a dependent action (the > initiator) CAN publicly announce eir intent to do so...", thus > announcing intent to perform a dependent action is itself a regulated > action. At the time woggle announced eir intent, e was not authorized > to perform the dependent action (which is also regulated), so e COULD > NOT effectively announce eir intent at that time. Ooh, I didn't know that. I think there's at least a few times I announced intent before I could do something anticipating that I'd be able to do it a few days later. -Goethe
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root: > To put it in algebraic terms, "FOO" expands to a vote. The > multiplication multiplies the number of votes. I don't see what's > ambiguous about that. The fact that FOO might not be a constant. It's ambiguous whether you're multiplying the result of the expansion of one mention of FOO, or if you're generating 5 separate copies of FOO, which isn't even a vote. Let me expand BobTHJ's sell ticket literally, fixing the grammar: "[I] post[ing] a Sell Ticket with a cost of 5VP and vot[e/ing] to endorse the filler of that ticket x5" Notice where the x5 ends up after the expansion. That looks awfully to me like voting x5, based on one Sell Ticket. The ambiguity is in whether the SELL(5VP) or the x5 is expanded first. You seem to think the x5 is expanded first, but I still can't see any evidence for this view. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't >> explain whether "FOO" is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a >> result, your vote probably fails altogether due to the ambiguity, as does >> BobTHJ's. >> -- >> ais523 >> > > Section 11 may have some bearing on this issue: > > 11. For the purposes of Buy and Sell Tickets, if the specified action is > to vote in a certain manner on an Agoran Decision, a party only fills > eir obligation to take the specified action if at the end of that > decision's voting period e has cast a number of valid votes equal to > eir voting limit on that decision and all those votes are in the > manner described in the Buy or Sell Ticket. Er, I'm afraid I don't see the relevance. -root
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:24, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > root: >> FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not >> for casting a single vote of FOO x 3. > > Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't > explain whether "FOO" is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a > result, your vote probably fails altogether due to the ambiguity, as does > BobTHJ's. > -- > ais523 > Section 11 may have some bearing on this issue: 11. For the purposes of Buy and Sell Tickets, if the specified action is to vote in a certain manner on an Agoran Decision, a party only fills eir obligation to take the specified action if at the end of that decision's voting period e has cast a number of valid votes equal to eir voting limit on that decision and all those votes are in the manner described in the Buy or Sell Ticket. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > root: >> FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not >> for casting a single vote of FOO x 3. > > Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't > explain whether "FOO" is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a > result, your vote probably fails altogether due to the ambiguity, as does > BobTHJ's. To put it in algebraic terms, "FOO" expands to a vote. The multiplication multiplies the number of votes. I don't see what's ambiguous about that. -root
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root: > FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not > for casting a single vote of FOO x 3. Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't explain whether "FOO" is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a result, your vote probably fails altogether due to the ambiguity, as does BobTHJ's. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > root wrote: >> The actual wording of the contract does not agree with you. "A vote >> of SELL(X - Y) on an Agoran decision is equivalent to posting a Sell >> Ticket with a cost of X and voting to endorse the filler of that >> ticket" 5 votes of SELL(X - Y), then, is plainly equivalent to >> posting 5 Sell Tickets. > No, it isn't. In most programming languages, > > f(x) * 5 > > calculates f(x) and then multiplies the result each time. Therefore, the > only sensible interpretation of the programming-like abbreviation > SELL (5VP) x 5 is to file a sell ticket for 5VP, and vote 5 times to endorse > the filler of that ticket. You're trying to multiply the function itself, > rather > than its result. In the words of Kelly, the rules are not a computer program. FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not for casting a single vote of FOO x 3. -root
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root wrote: > The actual wording of the contract does not agree with you. "A vote > of SELL(X - Y) on an Agoran decision is equivalent to posting a Sell > Ticket with a cost of X and voting to endorse the filler of that > ticket" 5 votes of SELL(X - Y), then, is plainly equivalent to > posting 5 Sell Tickets. No, it isn't. In most programming languages, f(x) * 5 calculates f(x) and then multiplies the result each time. Therefore, the only sensible interpretation of the programming-like abbreviation SELL (5VP) x 5 is to file a sell ticket for 5VP, and vote 5 times to endorse the filler of that ticket. You're trying to multiply the function itself, rather than its result. -- ais523
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I didn't say which one. Also, I don't read SELL (5VP) like that at all. > The obvious, and only equitable meaning, is that BobTHJ filed a sell ticket > for 5VP, and then voted 5 times as required by the ticket; SELL (5VP) is a > vote to endorse a player who pays 5VP, and multiplying that by 5 is 5 votes > to endorse a player who pays 5VP. The actual wording of the contract does not agree with you. "A vote of SELL(X - Y) on an Agoran decision is equivalent to posting a Sell Ticket with a cost of X and voting to endorse the filler of that ticket" 5 votes of SELL(X - Y), then, is plainly equivalent to posting 5 Sell Tickets. > This was obviously BobTHJ's intention, as e was clearly trying to persuade me > to bribe em and a bribe of 25VP for 5 votes would clearly be way above the > amount I was willing to pay. (Contrast my 8VP for 8 votes bribe with Taral.) I posted a similar vote, and my intention really was 15 VP for 3 votes. If Taral is cheaper, that's up to em. > The intention of the voter is what matters in determining a vote. Um, no. The announcement of the vote is what matters in determining a vote. If I accidentally vote FOR when I intended to vote AGAINST, then I'm just out of luck. > If there were in fact 5 tickets, I didn't fill any of them, because I > specified that I was filling "the ticket" not "a ticket". Possibly. Either way, you didn't fill enough of them. -root
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
Well, I didn't say which one. Also, I don't read SELL (5VP) like that at all.
The obvious, and only equitable meaning, is that BobTHJ filed a sell ticket for
5VP, and then voted 5 times as required by the ticket; SELL (5VP) is a vote to
endorse a player who pays 5VP, and multiplying that by 5 is 5 votes to endorse
a player who pays 5VP.
This was obviously BobTHJ's intention, as e was clearly trying to persuade me
to bribe em and a bribe of 25VP for 5 votes would clearly be way above the
amount I was willing to pay. (Contrast my 8VP for 8 votes bribe with Taral.)
The intention of the voter is what matters in determining a vote. If there were
in fact 5 tickets, I didn't fill any of them, because I specified that I was
filling "the ticket" not "a ticket".
--
ais523
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ian Kelly
Sent: Wed 01/10/2008 17:38
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal
5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the Assessor to send the
> following message:
> {{{
> This message hereby resolves the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal
> 5707.
> The decision chosen by Agora was ADOPTED.
>
> The votes were as follows:
> ais523 FORx2
> BobTHJ FORx5
> comex FORx1
> Dvorak Herring AGAINSTx1
> Goethe FORx2
> Ivan Hope CXXVI FORx1
> OscarMeyr AGAINSTx3
> Pavitra AGAINSTx1
> root AGAINSTx3
> Sir Toby AGAINSTx1
> Taral FORx8
> tusho FORx1
> woggle AGAINSTx2
> Wooble AGAINSTx5
>
> Totals: FOR 20, AGAINST 16
> VI=1.25, AI=1, so ADOPTED.
> }}}
CoE: Despite your earlier claim, BobTHJ only voted once on P5707. The
final count was therefore 16 FOR, 16 AGAINST, resulting in an outcome
of REJECTED.
BobTHJ's exact vote was "SELL(5VP) x5". This is five sell tickets,
each corresponding to a single vote, not one sell ticket corresponding
to five votes. However, ais523 only filled one of these tickets: "I
fill BobTHJ's open sell ticket on proposal 5707, causing em to endorse
me on that vote and therefore vote SELLx5."
-root
<>
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 09:26, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wooble wrote: >> How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of >> the proposal it intended to democritize? > The intent is to democratise a decision, not a proposal. The decision in > question didn't exist, > so there is no way woggle can have referred to it. Since proposal numbers are unique and AFAIK it is only possible to initiate a decision on whether to adopt a particular proposal once, I think my intent was unambiguous, the impossibility of it being resolved at the time it was made notwithstanding. -woggle
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
Wooble wrote: > How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of > the proposal it intended to democritize? The intent is to democratise a decision, not a proposal. The decision in question didn't exist, so there is no way woggle can have referred to it. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Fails, the decision in question didn't exist when woggle attempted to >> democratise it, so eir action failed due to not clearly specifying what >> it was talking about. > > How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of > the proposal it intended to democritize? > > I call for judgement, barring ais523, on "Proposal 5707 is a > democratic proposal." I agree with ais523, though it's not really a matter of clarity. Per R1728, "A player authorized to perform a dependent action (the initiator) CAN publicly announce eir intent to do so...", thus announcing intent to perform a dependent action is itself a regulated action. At the time woggle announced eir intent, e was not authorized to perform the dependent action (which is also regulated), so e COULD NOT effectively announce eir intent at that time. -root
