Falsifian wrote:
CoE: this disregards voting strength for instant runoff, as specified in
Rule 955.
So it does! Okay, working that out:
* Default 3 (Rule 2422)
* -1 per 3 blots (Rule 2556)
- -2 for Corona (8 blots)
- -2 for twg (7 blots)
* Rules 2537 and 2540 are still suspended
* Rul
This time with "BUS:" pre-added. If I haven't already submitted a CFJ
with the statement quoted below, then I do so now.
Forwarded Message
Subject: CFJ on implicit voting
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 20:35:43 -0700
From: Edward Murphy
To: Agora Business
CFJ: A player who quotes the
If I haven't already awarded a ribbon as quoted below, then I do so.
Forwarded Message
Subject: Speaking of ribbons...
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 20:37:01 -0700
From: Edward Murphy
To: Agora Business
If possible, I award a Cyan ribbon to R. Lee for deputising for ADoP.
On 7/1/2019 6:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
8197 G. none no power is all powerful
CoE: The AI of the Decision to Adopt Proposal 8197 is 1.0, not 'none'.
In R1607:
> Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For
> this decision, the vote co
I earn 5 coins for publishing the ADoP report.
I expunge one of my blots (if any, and if possible).
CoE: omd's ballot is not valid, as it is not an "ordered [list] of
entities", as specified by Rule 2528, because "balloons" is not an entity.
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 11:31 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
Re-sending this as DKIM issues will probably screw up the first attempt.
Forwarded Messag
If possible, I award a Cyan ribbon to R. Lee for deputising for ADoP.
CFJ: A player who quotes the number and title of a proposal followed by
"FOR" thereby votes FOR that proposal, provided that e is otherwise able
to do so.
(This was apparently claimed to be false a week or two back, with a
comment along the lines of "these resemble votes but are not in fact
votes
CoE: this disregards voting strength for instant runoff, as specified in
Rule 955.
There's nothing that actually breaks instant runoff in this instance.
The issue is that (in my view) the set of ballots that are accepted is
too large, rather than too small (lists of all entities, rather than
Re-sending this as DKIM issues will probably screw up the first attempt.
Forwarded Message
Subject: Resolving Prime Minister election
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 20:30:52 -0700
From: Edward Murphy
To: Agora Business
[Disclaimer: I didn't catch what's currently going on with IRV, o
[Disclaimer: I didn't catch what's currently going on with IRV, other
than "what if your list contains a non-candidate", so it's possible
that something about this is broken. But proceeding anyway in case
it's okay after all.]
According to my records, votes were:
ATMunn G., Aris, Corona
Eh, I thought 8197 was taking advantage of a neat little bug. I'd also
kind of like to see how R106 is interpreted with a non-numeric adoption
index, and this might be the one opportunity (although there might be
precedent that I don't know about).
I wasn't aware of the history, though (and I
Falsifian wrote:
CoE: Rance is the Herald. E published a Herald's report by
deputisation on June 4.
Admitted, database corrected. This appears to have been some combination
of (a) my address getting cut off due to intermittent bounces and (b) my
failing to receive some/all messages sent by Ran
Well it's not a resolution that is CoE'able but you are both correct.
In that case I resign the position of ADoP and do not consent to be
installed as ADoP
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:01 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I CoE the purported resolution both on Jason Cob
I CoE the purported resolution both on Jason Cobb's logic in the email
this one replies to and the following basis:
Withdrawing doesn't make you not a candidate. It just means you no
longer consent to be installed into the office, and thus cannot be
installed even if you later win.
-Aris
On Mon
Rule 2154:
An election is contested if it has two or more candidates at the
end of the nomination period, and uncontested otherwise. For a
contested election, nominations close at the end of the poll's
voting period. For an uncontested election, nominations close at
the end of the nomination per
I vote as follows:
>
>
> > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> > ---
> > 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2)
PRESENT
> > 8197 G. none no power is all powerful
AGAINST. I wa
I vote as follows:
8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2)
PRESENT
8197 G. none no power is all powerful
AGAINST
8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon!
FOR
8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff
AGAINST (if some
PF.
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 10:09 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Claim of error: I submitted the proposal "Regulated actions reform
(v2)" here [0].
[0]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040719.html
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 9:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I vote as follows:
IDAuthor(s) AITitle
---
8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2)
FOR
8197 G. none no power is all powerful
FOR [this should be fun...]
TTttPF again oops
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:03 PM Rebecca wrote:
> ttpf
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:03 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
>> Reminder that I am still pledged to vote AGAINST anything that adds words
>> to the rules
>>
>> I vote as follows. I also act on Tarhalindur's behalf t
I submit the following proposal.
-Aris
---
Title: Just Make Them Write It Out
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors:
[It's terribly confusing for everyone to leave out a proposal title. Leaving
out AI only works if it's 1.0 anyway, and confuses me every time I see it.
I usually spend like
Since no one else seems to be submitting this, and it seems generally
sensible regardless of what else happens, I submit the following
proposal.
-Aris
---
Title: Sane AI Defaulting
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G.
Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing:
Alright, this seems to have some issues, so I withdraw this proposal
("Proposal AI fix").
Jason Cobb
On 7/1/19 2:30 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Proposal AI fix
Author: Jason Cobb
AI: 3
Text:
{
[Comment: restrict proposal AIs to valid adoption indices. E
I submit the following proposal:
Title: Proposal AI fix
Author: Jason Cobb
AI: 3
Text:
{
[Comment: restrict proposal AIs to valid adoption indices. Explicitly
provide the default for proposals, rather than Agoran Decisions as a
whole - this means that a proposal, once created, always has
I award myself the Patent Title "nouveau riche" by paying a fee of 1 Coin
for this sole purpose.
[To avoid any sort of no faking, I don't expect that the award worked].
I CFJ: In this message, G. destroyed a coin.
Arguments
The award in question is not a fee-based action at all. R2579 sp
26 matches
Mail list logo
