Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6763-6765
Yally wrote: On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 13:51, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com mailto:ride...@gmail.com wrote: in case of a tie then the first of those players alphabetically Oh, I see how it is. You could always change your nickname to Adams...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6763-6765
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Proposal: More ID numbers (AI=2, Distributable via fee) Does this mean you just paid the fee? That looks like CFJ-worthy ambiguity there... Yeah, by the letter of it I'm not sure it's possible to make a proposal Distributable before submitting it (and writing out its text in full), so I initially included my fee-paying at the end of the proposal. But after other players adopted this shorthand and nobody objected, I adopted it as well. Amend Rule 1607 by replacing Distributed proposals have ID numbers with Proposals have ID numbers. Do you think this over-inflates proposal ID numbers with ones that are submitted than retracted? If I submit one to the pool, then 10 minutes later notice a flaw and retract and re-submit, does the promotor still (after the fact) have to assign number to the old one? This is a fairly common occurrence. Maybe a middle ground is proposals that are distributed or a player announces intent to adopt get ID numbers. I don't think it's common enough to make a significant difference, and it's rather unusual IMO that proposals in the Proposal Pool have to be referred to by title when just about every other tracked body of text has an ID number. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6763-6765
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, comex wrote: On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Proposal: More ID numbers (AI=2, Distributable via fee) Does this mean you just paid the fee? That looks like CFJ-worthy ambiguity there... Yeah, by the letter of it I'm not sure it's possible to make a proposal Distributable before submitting it (and writing out its text in full), so I initially included my fee-paying at the end of the proposal. I think we've always been ok with I submit the following proposal and pay a fee to make it distributable: and there was some court case a long time ago that it was ok. Maybe not. It was the fact that your sentence no verb: are you saying this statement could be made distributable via fee, that you intend to do so, or that you are doing so? This is the first time I've noticed the shorthand being this ambiguous (to me). Do you think this over-inflates proposal ID numbers with ones that are submitted than retracted? If I submit one to the pool, then 10 minutes later notice a flaw and retract and re-submit, does the promotor still (after the fact) have to assign number to the old one? This is a fairly common occurrence. Maybe a middle ground is proposals that are distributed or a player announces intent to adopt get ID numbers. I don't think it's common enough to make a significant difference, and it's rather unusual IMO that proposals in the Proposal Pool have to be referred to by title when just about every other tracked body of text has an ID number. I'm curious as to the Promotor's opinion here. H. Promotor Wooble, any thoughts on it? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6763-6765
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I think we've always been ok with I submit the following proposal and pay a fee to make it distributable: and there was some court case a long time ago that it was ok. Maybe not. It was the fact that your sentence no verb: are you saying this statement could be made distributable via fee, that you intend to do so, or that you are doing so? This is the first time I've noticed the shorthand being this ambiguous (to me). /me searches Agora label The same text (Distributable via fee in parentheses) has occurred in many previous proposals, mostly mine actually, but also some of coppro's. The Promotor hasn't seemed to mind.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6763-6765
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I don't think it's common enough to make a significant difference, and it's rather unusual IMO that proposals in the Proposal Pool have to be referred to by title when just about every other tracked body of text has an ID number. I'm curious as to the Promotor's opinion here. H. Promotor Wooble, any thoughts on it? I've been entering withdrawn proposals into the database even if I'm aware of the withdrawn status before I do so; the only effect on my workflow would be to need to adjust the new proposal form at add the ID instead of doing it at distribution time. It might be more annoying to the Assessor to no longer have contiguous IDs in distributions. In creating my proposal archive, I did notice that Zefram used a pool number, distinct from the distributed proposal ID. I don't know if this was just for eir own recordkeeping or if it was rules-defined when e was Promotor; I don't remember it being so but I was still a newbie when e left. As for the Distributable notes in the proposal submissions, I've been treating them as effective. (I've also been treating all of the fees as being payable by the ergs on hand by each player, despite the lack of a recent PSM report.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6763-6765
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote: In creating my proposal archive, I did notice that Zefram used a pool number, distinct from the distributed proposal ID. I don't know if this was just for eir own recordkeeping or if it was rules-defined when e was Promotor; I don't remember it being so but I was still a newbie when e left. That predates Zefram: from the earliest proposal pool in the archives, by RedKnight (the system predates em as well): Proposal Pool No.| Title | By | AI | Date| Flag || || | 02-184 | no title | Murphy | 1 | 28Oct02 | Ds 02-187 | What Are You Looking At| Steve| 1 | 02Nov02 | Dc 02-188 | Let's Play Q*Bert (tm) | OscarMeyr| 1 | 03Nov02 | O [etc] Then they got numbers on the main Proposal sequence when they were distributed. It was all wholly custom, not Rule. In fact, Proposal numbers themselves were not defined by the longest time, nor were numbers for anything except Rules themselves. CFJ 1358 (full disclosure: opinion by G.) shows the state of things then: ... while by Agoran Custom we vote for Proposals by number, A PROPOSAL'S NUMBER IS NOT EXPLICITLY DEFINED BY THE RULES. But by Agoran custom, a Proposal's number may be changed by the Promoter (for example, on distribution) provided such changes are consistent enough to allow reasonable communication of voting and other actions. For this to be true, by strong Agoran Convention, no two Proposal Numbers are alike. As a result, it is a perfectly legal and valid communication to vote for a Proposal by number. So the longstanding Agoran custom (for 4000+ Proposals?) is that every Proposal have at least one unique number. But the Promoter is required, by the Rules, to track Titles, not Numbers. The only conclusion that can be drawn from these two facts is that, by longstanding, consistent, Agoran Custom, a Proposal's Number is an integral part of its title. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6763-6765
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Geoffrey Spear wrote: In creating my proposal archive, I did notice that Zefram used a pool number, distinct from the distributed proposal ID. I don't know if this was just for eir own recordkeeping or if it was rules-defined when e was Promotor; I don't remember it being so but I was still a newbie when e left. That predates Zefram: from the earliest proposal pool in the archives, by RedKnight (the system predates em as well): Proposal Pool No. | Title | By | AI | Date | Flag | | | | | 02-184 | no title | Murphy | 1 | 28Oct02 | Ds 02-187 | What Are You Looking At | Steve | 1 | 02Nov02 | Dc 02-188 | Let's Play Q*Bert (tm) | OscarMeyr | 1 | 03Nov02 | O [etc] One day I'll dig all of those old proposals out of the archives for my database. Although putting a front end on it first would probably be a good idea.
