Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Consent doesn't perform the action
On Nov 18, 2007 10:55 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had chosen Assets because permissions would share the concept of 'being > owned' > I guess. Each permission would belong to a person and specify an action. > Permissions being liquid and allowing me to transfer them actually seems like > it > might useful to me rather than overkill. I see other places it could be used > (e.g., The vote collector is granted a permission to resolve an agoran > decision), where transferring of this permission (e.g., assessor on vaction) > would help. But, I do like simple first. > > I see the complex part of permissions as ensuring that each permission only > allows one action to be performed and only performed once. I'm not sure > whether > any action should be able to be part of a permission, or only those which > specify they require permissions. Additionally, in some cases it may make a difference who the actor is, especially with regard to diplomacy. In such cases, the permission should not be transferable. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Consent doesn't perform the action
I'm liking Levi's permission-as-a-state idea, although I don't think that there's any reason that permissions should be assets...unless we go way overboard with it. :-) Liquid assets, no doubt. I had chosen Assets because permissions would share the concept of 'being owned' I guess. Each permission would belong to a person and specify an action. Permissions being liquid and allowing me to transfer them actually seems like it might useful to me rather than overkill. I see other places it could be used (e.g., The vote collector is granted a permission to resolve an agoran decision), where transferring of this permission (e.g., assessor on vaction) would help. But, I do like simple first. I see the complex part of permissions as ensuring that each permission only allows one action to be performed and only performed once. I'm not sure whether any action should be able to be part of a permission, or only those which specify they require permissions. Levi
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Consent doesn't perform the action
root wrote: On Nov 18, 2007 9:34 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector CAN perform the action (by announcement if no other mechanism is specified) within one week after resolving the decision. Rule 2172 doesn't specify any mechanism. The best I can come up with is "by announcement if no other mechanism exists", but something about that bothers me. "by announcement if the action is a rule-defined action and no other mechanism is specified"? I'm liking Levi's permission-as-a-state idea, although I don't think that there's any reason that permissions should be assets...unless we go way overboard with it. :-) Liquid assets, no doubt.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Consent doesn't perform the action
On Nov 18, 2007 9:34 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >(g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector CAN >perform the action (by announcement if no other mechanism >is specified) within one week after resolving the decision. Rule 2172 doesn't specify any mechanism. The best I can come up with is "by announcement if no other mechanism exists", but something about that bothers me. I'm liking Levi's permission-as-a-state idea, although I don't think that there's any reason that permissions should be assets...unless we go way overboard with it. :-) -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Consent doesn't perform the action
root wrote: On Nov 18, 2007 8:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Nov 18, 2007 6:51 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here. CAN isn't sufficient; there's still no mechanism to replace the one you're removing. Make it "CAN by announcement". Except now that I think about it, that completely displaces the point of the proposal. You don't send a message to B Nomic on behalf of Agora by posting it to Agora's public forum. What's a non-ugly way for the rule to supply a mechanism for actions that need one but not require the same mechanism for actions that don't? ^^^ (edited) (g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector CAN perform the action (by announcement if no other mechanism is specified) within one week after resolving the decision.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Consent doesn't perform the action
Ian Kelly wrote: On Nov 18, 2007 8:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Nov 18, 2007 6:51 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here. CAN isn't sufficient; there's still no mechanism to replace the one you're removing. Make it "CAN by announcement". Except now that I think about it, that completely displaces the point of the proposal. You don't send a message to B Nomic on behalf of Agora by posting it to Agora's public forum. What's a non-ugly way for the rule to supply a mechanism for actions that need one but require the same mechanism for actions that don't? -root I was just thinking about this one. One way to do this may be to introduce "Permissions". They could be probably be an Asset that would destroy itself after 14 days. Then have a rule where Permissions can be created with Agoran Consent. That way the dependant action is the granting of the permission and is performed upon resolution of the decision. The owner of a permission can perform the action that the permission allows, or it expires after 14 days. I'd have to read through the asset stuff before protoing this and I'm not sure how to define that a permission only relates to one particular action. Levi
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Consent doesn't perform the action
On Nov 18, 2007 8:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Except now that I think about it, that completely displaces the point > of the proposal. You don't send a message to B Nomic on behalf of > Agora by posting it to Agora's public forum. What's a non-ugly way > for the rule to supply a mechanism for actions that need one but > require the same mechanism for actions that don't? s/require/not require/ -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Consent doesn't perform the action
On Nov 18, 2007 8:21 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 18, 2007 6:51 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here. > > CAN isn't sufficient; there's still no mechanism to replace the one > you're removing. Make it "CAN by announcement". Except now that I think about it, that completely displaces the point of the proposal. You don't send a message to B Nomic on behalf of Agora by posting it to Agora's public forum. What's a non-ugly way for the rule to supply a mechanism for actions that need one but require the same mechanism for actions that don't? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Consent doesn't perform the action
On Nov 18, 2007 6:51 PM, Levi Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here. CAN isn't sufficient; there's still no mechanism to replace the one you're removing. Make it "CAN by announcement". On Nov 18, 2007 7:00 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you're right, it needs a case-by-case review. Here are all > the things currently possible via Agoran consent: > > [2144] deregister a redundant partnership > [2154] install an officer (already required when part of the IADoP's > duty to attempt quarterly changes) > [2172] act on behalf of Agora > [2147] certify a protectorate Don't forget actions with support and without objection; those are covered by the same paragraph. [2142] Democratize a proposal, with 2 support [911] Appeal a judgement, with 2 support [1922] Grant or revoke the patent title of Bard, with X support [2130] Make another player inactive, without objection [2130] Deregister a continuously inactive player, without objection [478] Registrar change the publicity of a forum, without objection [2154] Flip an office's stability, without 2 objections [1551] Ratify an official document, without objection The only cases that bother me out of all those are "democratize a proposal" and "appeal a judgement"; both of those are time-sensitive matters that depend upon the player actually going through with it. It's worth pointing out that there already is no requirement for the vote collector of a dependent action to follow through, since e need not resolve the decision. This is based on paragraphs (c) and (f) of R1728: (c) The voting period ends after fourteen days or immediately before it is resolved, whichever comes first. (f) The vote collector of such a decision CANNOT resolve it if it was initiated more than fourteen days ago... -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Consent doesn't perform the action
Levi wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: comex wrote: On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote: (g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector MUST perform the action as soon as possible after resolving the decision. add CAN Replace with CAN, actually. A player intending to perform a dependent action should be able to change eir mind, unless the rules require em to go through with it in a specific situation (e.g. last paragraph of Rule 2154). Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here. It might be beneficial to check some of the places where Agoran Consent is used to make sure that the player changing eir mind to not perform the action makes sense. I'm a little uneasy by the following reasoning: * Player A says I'm going to do this, if you think I should * Agora says (through consent), yes that's a good idea. * Player A says, actually I don't want to anymore. Is it giving Player A the ability to override the opinion of Agora? I think you're right, it needs a case-by-case review. Here are all the things currently possible via Agoran consent: [2144] deregister a redundant partnership [2154] install an officer (already required when part of the IADoP's duty to attempt quarterly changes) [2172] act on behalf of Agora [2147] certify a protectorate
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Consent doesn't perform the action
Ed Murphy wrote: comex wrote: On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote: (g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector MUST perform the action as soon as possible after resolving the decision. add CAN Replace with CAN, actually. A player intending to perform a dependent action should be able to change eir mind, unless the rules require em to go through with it in a specific situation (e.g. last paragraph of Rule 2154). Thanks. I think CAN does better describe what I'm trying to achieve here. It might be beneficial to check some of the places where Agoran Consent is used to make sure that the player changing eir mind to not perform the action makes sense. I'm a little uneasy by the following reasoning: * Player A says I'm going to do this, if you think I should * Agora says (through consent), yes that's a good idea. * Player A says, actually I don't want to anymore. Is it giving Player A the ability to override the opinion of Agora? Levi
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal - Consent doesn't perform the action
comex wrote: On Sunday 18 November 2007, Levi Stephen wrote: (g) If the outcome is APPROVED, then the vote collector MUST perform the action as soon as possible after resolving the decision. add CAN Replace with CAN, actually. A player intending to perform a dependent action should be able to change eir mind, unless the rules require em to go through with it in a specific situation (e.g. last paragraph of Rule 2154).
