Ok found it --- Discussion is here:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg44022.html
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> I call a CFJ with the statement: Quorum on the Agoran Decisions on
> whether or not to adopt Proposals 8066-8076
> was 5.0.
>
> There were two CF
Sorry this is from memory I'm not in a place to go digging but IIRC:
PSS (I think PSS?) delivered a judgement that would have invalidated one
of the votes. The logic of that judgement didn't apply (for some reason
I forget) to the other questionable votes (I think it was kind of odd
logic but do
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> Dude it's 5.0. Uncontested CFJs ruled that those votes didn't count.
>
> Anyway if I must I vote PRESENT on each agoran decision.
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > Quorum on the Agoran Decisions on whether or not to adop
Title: Point Installation Act
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G., twg
Create the following Rule, Points, AI-2.0:
Points are the official currency of Agora. Points can
only be owned by players and Agora. Points are tracked by the
Treasuror.
For each player, create a number
Well, then it just won't be ratified. Deal with the uncertainty!
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:50 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> same, it's 5.
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I object. I'd be fine with the lower value though.
> >
> >
> > On Mon
same, it's 5.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I object. I'd be fine with the lower value though.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I hereby intend to ratify the following document, with
Actually, I did vote. I can see why you missed it, though, because I hit
send before changing the recipient to a-b, therefore sending it to a-o.
A bit unconventional, but it is still a public forum. Therefore, my
votes should be counted.
here's the message:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-
Yeah, I agree it's probably not actually necessary, but I figure more precision
can't be a bad thing, and in the unlikely event that it _does_ actually close a
loophole, we'll be glad of it.
Good to know you're taking care of the Points Installation Act, I'll look
forward to it. :) And congratu
You continuing out the quorum uncertainty is going to create decision
uncertainty because we will be unsure of whose votes counted. At some
point, we need to just ratify it and make up our minds.
I hereby intend to ratify the following document, without objection:
{
The quorum on each of the d
Well, the solution for that is for enough people to vote (in the next decision
with uncertain quorum) to beat the maximum possible value of quorum.
I think decision uncertainty is far more undesirable than quorum uncertainty.
We're just about coping with having two possible quora for each decisi
You can fix decision uncertainty, but this unavoidably perpetuates the quorum
uncertainty. Any votes now are valid if and only if the voting period has been
extended, so their validity for determining quorum in the next batch will be
uncertain...
(Personally I'm abstaining on purpose so I'm de
Thanks for the offer! I've written it. I just need to look it over, and
I'll probably publish a draft sometime tomorow (UTC-7:00). After that, I'll
leave a few days for public comment, and then distribute later this week.
Good idea on providing a flat adjustment version of "From each according to
e
12 matches
Mail list logo
