RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8349-8356 ================================= THIS IS AN AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED REPORT. SOME INFORMATION MAY DIFFER FROM THE HISTORICAL REPORT. THE ASSESSMENT SENT TO THE PUBLIC FORUM IS THE DEFINITIVE SOURCE OF HISTORICAL INFORMATION. The official historical report is located at https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-March/013548.html ID Title Result ---------------------------------------------- 8349 Temporary CFJ Setup ADOPTED 8350 Apologies Don't Interfere ADOPTED 8351 Double proposal application fix ADOPTED 8352 zombie auction fix 1.1 ADOPTED 8353 All that glisters ADOPTED 8354 Statutory Instrumentation ADOPTED 8355 Temporary Suspension of Rules ADOPTED 8356 Less Democracy Means More Fun ADOPTED I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals. The quorum for all below decisions was 7. VOTING STRENGTHS ================ Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted. $: player has voting strength 4 %: player has voting strength 5 ^: player has voting strength 6 &: player has voting strength 7 *: player has voting strength 8 PROPOSALS ========= PROPOSAL 8349 (Temporary CFJ Setup) AUTHOR: Kate CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: JUSTICE FOR (8): Aris%, Bernie, G.%, Janet, Murphy, Warrigal, o, sukil AGAINST (1): Alexis PRESENT (2): Falsifian, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 28/3 (AI=1.0) POPULARITY: 0.636 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Bernie: Endorsement of Janet Falsifian: Conditional resolved: Arbitor not AGAINST, and no Notice of Veto was published Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: Conditional resolved: Kate not FOR, but Assessor not AGAINST ] PROPOSAL 8350 (Apologies Don't Interfere) AUTHOR: Alexis CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: JUSTICE FOR (11): Alexis, Aris%, Bernie, Falsifian, G.%, Janet, Murphy, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Warrigal, o, sukil AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 37/0 (AI=2.0) POPULARITY: 1.000 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Bernie: Endorsement of Janet Falsifian: Endorsement of Alexis ] PROPOSAL 8351 (Double proposal application fix) AUTHOR: Janet CLASS: DEMOCRATIC FOR (11): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G., Janet, Murphy, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Warrigal, o, sukil AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 33/0 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 1.000 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Bernie: Endorsement of Janet Falsifian: Endorsement of Janet ] PROPOSAL 8352 (zombie auction fix 1.1) AUTHOR: G. CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: ECONOMY FOR (10): Alexis, Aris%, Bernie, Falsifian, G., Janet, Murphy, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Warrigal, o AGAINST (0): PRESENT (1): sukil BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 32/0 (AI=2.0) POPULARITY: 0.909 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Bernie: Endorsement of Janet Falsifian: Endorsement of G. Janet: Endorsement of G. ] PROPOSAL 8353 (All that glisters) AUTHOR: Murphy CLASS: DEMOCRATIC FOR (9): Alexis, Bernie, Falsifian, G., Janet, Murphy, Warrigal, o, sukil AGAINST (1): Publius Scribonius Scholasticus PRESENT (1): Aris BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 27/3 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 0.727 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Bernie: Endorsement of Janet Falsifian: Endorsement of Murphy ] PROPOSAL 8354 (Statutory Instrumentation) AUTHOR: Alexis CLASS: DEMOCRATIC FOR (5): Alexis, G., Murphy, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, o AGAINST (1): Warrigal PRESENT (5): Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Janet, sukil BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 15/3 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 0.364 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Bernie: Endorsement of Janet ] PROPOSAL 8355 (Temporary Suspension of Rules) AUTHOR: Alexis CLASS: DEMOCRATIC FOR (6): Alexis, G., Murphy, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Warrigal, o AGAINST (0): PRESENT (5): Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Janet, sukil BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 18/0 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 0.545 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Bernie: Endorsement of Janet ] PROPOSAL 8356 (Less Democracy Means More Fun) AUTHOR: Aris CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: LEGISLATION FOR (8): Alexis, Aris&, Bernie, G., Janet&, Murphy, Warrigal, o AGAINST (1): Publius Scribonius Scholasticus PRESENT (1): sukil BALLOTS: 10 AI (F/A): 32/3 (AI=2.0) POPULARITY: 0.700 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Bernie: Endorsement of Janet ] The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below: ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8349 Title: Temporary CFJ Setup Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Kate Co-authors: Enact a new Rule of Power 1.0 entitled "Temporary CFJ Setup" with the following text: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, twg CANNOT publish a Notice of Honour. twg CAN, by announcement, cause this Rule to repeal itself. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8350 Title: Apologies Don't Interfere Adoption index: 2.0 Author: Alexis Co-authors: Amend rule 2555 by replacing "who has not expunged any blots in the current Agoran week" with "who has not, by this mechanism, expunged any blots in the current Agoran week". ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8351 Title: Double proposal application fix Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Janet Co-authors: Amend Rule 2034 by replacing the text "such a proposal existed, was adopted, and took effect." with the text "such a proposal existed, was adopted, and, if it had not previously taken effect, took effect.". [Intended to make the consequences of Assessorial mishaps significantly easier to deal with - this will insure that a proposal does not take effect twice if an assessment is posted twice (the first time because it succeeded platonically, the second time because of self-ratification).] ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8352 Title: zombie auction fix 1.1 Adoption index: 2.0 Author: G. Co-authors: Amend Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions) by replacing: For the purpose of such a auction, to transfer a zombie to a player is to set that zombie's master switch to that player. with: For the purpose of such a auction, to transfer a zombie to a player is to set that zombie's master switch to that player, and Agora CAN perform such transfers of the appropriate lots to auction winners. and by inserting a line break immediately before the resulting text so that it is a new paragraph. Amend Rule 2551 (Auction End) by deleting "at will". ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8353 Title: All that glisters Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Murphy Co-authors: Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing this text: - Otherwise, if e has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or the corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon, e CAN, by announcement, award emself that type of Glitter. with this text: - Otherwise, if e has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or the corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon, and has not been so awarded five or more times within the past 24 hours, e CAN, by announcement, award emself that type of Glitter. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8354 Title: Statutory Instrumentation Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Alexis Co-authors: Murphy, Aris, Gaelan =Administrative Law Reform. I. Statutory Instrumentation.= [This first proposal is a reform to the core rules defining what rules are, with an aim to better supporting subordinate legal documents. The intent is to enact very little change to the game as it is actually played, and to operate mostly in the realm of supporting definitions.] If this proposal has had any provision vetoed, then the entire proposal has no effect. If this proposal has already taken effect, then it has no effect. In this proposal, "I->S" is to amend a rule within the scope specified by replacing each instance of "an instrument" with "a statute", and each other instance of "instrument" with "statute". This is not a case-sensitive match, however, if the word "instrument" being replaced has a leading capital, then so does the replacement word "statute". Enact a new power-3.9 rule entitled "Statutory Instrumentation Simultaneity", reading: {{ Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the proposal which enacted this rule CAN effect multiple rule changes, which it could otherwise effect individually, simultaneously. When it attempts to do so, if any single rule change it attempts is INEFFECTIVE, then so is the entire attempt. If the proposal which enacted this rule effects a change to the definition of a rule then, except for rules which are simultaneously and explicitly enacted or repealed with that change, as appropriate, the rules after that change are exactly the entities that were rules beforehand. This is a definition of the interpretation of the amendment to the rules and not, in and of itself, a rule change. }} [This proposes to make multiple interlocking amendments to critical rules defining rules and the interactions between themselves. This mitigates a real risk that, during a series of sequential changes, the rules would be in a nonsensical or otherwise broken state. I considered trying to put in a special clause preserving the effect of the current rules on rule changes for the duration of the proposal, but that wouldn't preclude the possibility of some other aspect of the game, such as asset holdings, doing something weird in the in-between state. And only a persistent rule could elegantly paper over that small weird gap in time. I think simultaneity is the better choice.] Set the power of all non-rule entities, other than this proposal, to 0. [This is an important safety as the change to the definition of a rule would potentially cause old non-rule instruments to become rules. Best not to consider that.] Apply the following rule changes simultaneously: {{ Amend Rule 1688 (Power) by replacing "An Instrument is an entity with positive Power." with "A statute is a document with positive Power." Apply I->S throughout the remainder of the rule. Amend rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than its own." with "set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than its own except as otherwise provided in this rule.", applying I->S throughout the rest of the rule, and appending a new paragraph reading "An ephemeral instrument is bound by prohibitions and limitations specified in rules of lower power, unless it explicitly overrides those prohibition(s) as provided for in other rules." [I don't want to consider what it would mean if PCM prevents rules from interfering with higher-powered proposal. Let's pretend this is just clarifying something super obvious to everyone.] Apply I->S throughout Rule 105 (Rule Changes). Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Instruments" reading: { An instrument is a type of document, either ephemeral or enduring, that is defined as such by a body of law. An instrument's text, where otherwise permitted, can be amended from time to time. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an instrument other than a statute CANNOT become binding on a person without eir willful consent, however, consent can be given by implication. In particular, consenting to be bound to an instrument can imply consent to be bound by amendments to it and consent to be bound by other instruments. } Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Bodies of Law" reading: { A body of law is a collection of related instruments and bodies of law whose effects are collective and possibly interdependent, and which is defined as such by a body of law. The statutes of Agora form a body of law with unlimited scope. All other bodies of law are defined by a different body of law, in such a way as to be able to trace their origins back to the statutes of Agora. Two or more bodies of law may jointly define another body of law, but only each of them clearly expresses the intent to participate in a joint definition with each of the others. Otherwise, the definitions are separate, distinct, and unrelated. A body of law is governed by all bodies of law which, directly or indirectly, participate in its definition, as well as any body of law specified as governing it by any of its governing law. A body of law is subordinate to the law that governs it, other than itself, and a body of law is superior to the law that it governs, other than itself. For greater certainty, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the statutes of Agora govern all law and are governed by no law except themselves, and no body of law can be both subordinate to and superior to another. With respect to interactions between separate bodies of law, a body of law is generally to be interpreted as acting harmoniously as a single whole. The precedence between, and organization of, instruments in a body of law are internal matters to that body of law and generally do not affect the effect of other bodies of law, except to the extent that they affect the body's operation as a whole. The definition of a body of law includes the definition if its scope, being the areas of the game that it governs. By definition, the scope of a body of law is no greater than the union of the scopes of the bodies of law that define it, nor does it include anything which would bring it into direct conflict with superior law. To the extent that a body of law's scope is not explicitly defined by superior law, it is as broad as possible while excluding any effect on any substantive aspect of any body of law, besides itself, that it does not govern. Every instrument is a direct member of exactly one body of law; if not specified in its definition, it is a body of law in itself. A given fixation of text may, however, be the text of multiple instruments, each in different bodies of law. The scope of an instrument is the scope of the body of law it forms a part of. To the extent that the provisions of an instrument are outside its scope, they are void and without effect. } [This is the core of the reform: a base framework for multiple separate, scoped bodies of law. Rather than an explicit discussion of precedence between laws, a framework of scoping is used. This proposal does not define anything outside of rules and enacted proposals as being instruments and thus part of this framework, in order to allow gradual work on areas of the ruleset such as regulations and contracts. The reason for "bodies of law" as separate from "instruments" is that frequently, bodies of law express themselves collectively. The rules of Agora, for instance, can only be properly interpreted as a whole. Definitions of entities are often spread out, sometimes to the point where it's nearly impossible to pinpoint a single instrument as the source. Bodies of law capture this concept. They also allow more flexibility to be introduced in proposals to come, such as making clear that a body of law can modify definitions in superior law without a conflict. We can also make rules such as Rule 2125 more natural using this technology, see below. More importantly, it allows us to create contracts and similar documents that impose obligations and have other legal effect, but without that possibly "creeping" upwards and affecting things outside their scope. Contracts, for instance, can be safely defined without fear that they could be used to override lower-powered rules. Bodies of law can be nested. This is to allow for, say, the Rules and Regulations to collectively act as a single body of law, but the Rules to act as a body of law within it. In the future this could be the basis for something like Falsifian's modules. I would rather get the mechanism solid and well-tested before touching precedence between rules, however. Governance of bodies of law cannot, however, be circular, because while some bodies of law like the rules are self-governing, other circularity could cause more significant problems by causing a law to be subordinate/superior to itself, and I want to avoid thinking about that. I've worked hard to prevent any sort of bootstrapping scam by which a body of law could be brought into existence out of nowhere or otherwise come to govern a superior body without its permission. Please examine closely to see if I succeeded!] Amend Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions) to read: { An action is regulated by a body of law if (1) its performance is limited, allowed, enabled, or permitted by that body of law; (2) that body of law describes the circumstances under which it would succeed or fail; or (3) it would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some person bound by that body of law is required, by that body of law, to be a recordkeepor. If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that doing so is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action from being performed except as described within it, including by limiting the methods to perform that action to those specified within it. A body of law does not proscribed any action which it does not regulate. } [I'm sad about losing the SHALL NOT there. Violating that would surely have been one of the great Agoran crimes, along with failing to carefully consider the consequences of not reading the ruleset during RtRW.] Enact a new power-3 Rule entitled "Effects of Instruments" reading: { An instrument's effect is defined by its text, as amended from time to time in accordance with the law governing its operation. A "substantive" aspect of an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument's operation. If an instrument's text contains clearly marked comments then, they have no effect on its interpretation or operation except as that instrument itself specifies, although they remain part of its text. For the purposes of rules concerning the methods by which actions are performed, an instrument taking effect is such a method. An enduring instrument is one that it is always taking effect, to the extent it is permitted to so by the Rules and any other applicable instruments. An enduring instrument is always speaking; uses of the present tense in an enduring instrument are interpreted contextually according to the applicable rules of interpretation. An ephemeral instrument is one that takes effect only briefly, to effect a number of changes on the game. When it takes effect, the changes specified in its text are applied, provided that the instrument is not prohibited from doing so. Unless otherwise specified by the instrument or by its governing law, the provisions of an instrument are applied sequentially and independently, in the sense that the success or failure of each provision does not depend directly on the success or failure of any other provision. An ephemeral instrument has no ongoing effect, except to the extent that the changes it makes have ongoing consequences. It cannot, except by way of an enduring instrument, extend or delay its own effect. An ephemeral instrument CAN, where explicitly permitted to do so by the law governing it, override the effect of an enduring instrument within its scope by modifying, suppressing, or postponing it. Such an override is INEFFECTIVE unless the nature and scope of the override are clearly specified either in the governing law or, where so authorized by the governing law, in the instrument itself. An instrument or body of law is not, except where it specifies otherwise, bound by or restricted in any way by any subordinate law and implicitly overrides and takes precedence over all provisions, including outright prohibitions or definitions, of all subordinate law. } [This consolidates the existing rules about proposals and rules into one place, since they will need to be reused for other instruments. It also provides explicit override language, mainly intended to ensure that proposals can have free reign over gamestate modification, though that's a separate proposal. Law is not bound by any other law so as to make clear that proposals cannot be restricted by a contract, say.] Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attribute of Rules) to by replacing the first two paragraphs with the following: { A rule is an enduring statute. Every rule has a power between 0.1 and 4.0, inclusive. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, it is IMPOSSIBLE to enact a rule with power outside this range, or to change the power of an existing rule to a nonzero value outside this range. The set of all currently-existing rules is called the ruleset. } Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) to read as follows: { When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if the outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, it takes effect as an ephemeral instrument, and then its power is set to 0. This rule defers to rules that would prevent a proposal from taking effect. } [While this proposal does not immediately define any non-rule, non-proposal entities as instruments, the intent is that the creation of subordinate instruments comes implicitly. Thus, for instance, a contract can define a "sub-contract" within the scope of its own effect, and this would be recognized within law, once contracts are defined as instruments. Proposals ignore all subordinate law except as specified otherwise; this is a safety provision. Note that the deference provision is equivalent to the existing provision about preventing proposals from taking effect being secured, because deference does not override power as a determiner of precedence. So it will defer to any rule of power 3 or greater but take precedence over any lesser-powered rule.] }} Repeal the rule "Statutory Instrumentation Simultaneity" enacted earlier in this proposal. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8355 Title: Temporary Suspension of Rules Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Alexis Co-authors: Murphy =Administrative Law Reform. II. Temporary Suspension of Rules= If no proposal entitled "Statutory Instrumentation" has taken effect in the previous month, this proposal has no effect. If this proposal has already taken effect, it has no effect. Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by appending a new paragraph reading "A proposal CAN override the effect of any rule which it is capable of amending by specifying that it does so." [This is a small side proposal to allow proposals to temporarily override rules without having to do so by the enactment and subsequent repeal of a helper rule. It must be explicit.] ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8356 Title: Less Democracy Means More Fun Adoption index: 2.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Amend Rule 2606, "Proposal Classes", by changing the text "When a proposal with an adoption index greater than 2.0 is created, its class becomes democratic." to read "When a proposal with an adoption index greater than or equal to 3.0 is created, its class becomes democratic." [Note that proposals can still be turned democratic with 2 Agoran Consent. However, this reserves democratic status for proposals changing core rules or of great public concern.] //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////