RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8409-8430 ================================= 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-June/013796.html ID Title Result ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8409 College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences ADOPTED 8410 Promise Powers Patch ADOPTED 8411 Contract Lawyers ADOPTED 8412 Small Pledge Amendments ADOPTED 8413 Why Track Pendency? ADOPTED 8414 Ministerial Reshuffling REJECTED 8415 Proposal Recycling Initiative ADOPTED 8416 Identity theft protection act v1.1 ADOPTED 8417 Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege ADOPTED 8418 Referenda ADOPTED 8419 Executive Expansion REJECTED 8420 Checks and balances REJECTED 8422 No More Numbers! ADOPTED 8423 Removing Repetition ADOPTED 8424 Certifiable Patches ADOPTED 8425 Impossibility Defense ADOPTED 8426 Impracticability Defense ADOPTED 8427 Slap on the wrist ADOPTED 8428 Pending Pends ADOPTED 8429 Why Limit Clemency? ADOPTED 8430 Silver Quill 2016 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. $: player has voting strength 4 %: player has voting strength 5 ^: player has voting strength 6 &: player has voting strength 7 =: player has voting strength 10 PROPOSALS ========= PROPOSAL 8409 (College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences) AUTHOR: Aris CLASS: DEMOCRATIC FOR (10): ATMunn, Aris, Falsifian, G., Janet, Kate, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Trigon$, nix AGAINST (0): PRESENT (2): R. Lee, Tcbapo BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 31/0 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 0.833 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8410 (Promise Powers Patch) AUTHOR: Aris CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: ECONOMY FOR (9): ATMunn, Aris%, Falsifian, Janet, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, R. Lee, Tcbapo, nix AGAINST (2): G., Kate PRESENT (1): Trigon= BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 29/6 (AI=2.2) POPULARITY: 0.583 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8411 (Contract Lawyers) AUTHOR: R. Lee CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: PARTICIPATION FOR (11): ATMunn, Aris%, Falsifian, G., Kate, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus&, R. Lee, Tcbapo, Trigon^, nix AGAINST (0): PRESENT (1): Janet% BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 42/0 (AI=1.0) POPULARITY: 0.917 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8412 (Small Pledge Amendments) AUTHOR: R. Lee CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: JUSTICE FOR (7): Aris%, G.%, Kate, Madrid, R. Lee, Tcbapo, nix AGAINST (4): ATMunn, Falsifian, Janet, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus% PRESENT (1): Trigon^ BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 25/14 (AI=1.7) POPULARITY: 0.250 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8413 (Why Track Pendency?) AUTHOR: Aris CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: LEGISLATION FOR (10): ATMunn, Aris&, Falsifian, Janet&, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, R. Lee, Tcbapo, Trigon^, nix AGAINST (0): PRESENT (2): G., Kate BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 41/0 (AI=1.0) POPULARITY: 0.833 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8414 (Ministerial Reshuffling) AUTHOR: Aris CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: LEGISLATION FOR (5): Aris&, Falsifian, Janet&, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus AGAINST (3): R. Lee, Tcbapo, Trigon^ PRESENT (4): ATMunn, G., Kate, nix BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 23/12 (AI=2.0) POPULARITY: 0.167 OUTCOME: REJECTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8415 (Proposal Recycling Initiative) AUTHOR: Aris CLASS: DEMOCRATIC FOR (11): ATMunn, Aris, Falsifian, G., Janet, Kate, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, R. Lee, Tcbapo, Trigon$ AGAINST (0): PRESENT (1): nix BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 34/0 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 0.917 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8416 (Identity theft protection act v1.1) AUTHOR: Falsifian CLASS: DEMOCRATIC FOR (12): ATMunn, Aris, Falsifian, G., Janet, Kate, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, R. Lee, Tcbapo, Trigon$, nix AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 37/0 (AI=3.1) POPULARITY: 1.000 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8417 (Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege) AUTHOR: Aris CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: LEGISLATION FOR (11): ATMunn, Aris&, Falsifian, G., Janet&, Kate, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, R. Lee, Tcbapo, nix AGAINST (0): PRESENT (1): Trigon^ BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 41/0 (AI=1.0) POPULARITY: 0.917 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8418 (Referenda) AUTHOR: Aris CLASS: DEMOCRATIC FOR (7): Aris, G., Kate, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, R. Lee, Tcbapo AGAINST (1): Trigon$ PRESENT (4): ATMunn, Falsifian, Janet, nix BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 21/4 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 0.500 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8419 (Executive Expansion) AUTHOR: Aris CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: EFFICIENCY FOR (8): ATMunn, Aris%, Falsifian%, G., Janet%, Kate, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus AGAINST (4): R. Lee%, Tcbapo, Trigon^, nix PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 30/17 (AI=2.0) POPULARITY: 0.333 OUTCOME: REJECTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8420 (Checks and balances) AUTHOR: G. CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: EFFICIENCY FOR (7): ATMunn, Falsifian%, G., Kate, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, nix AGAINST (4): Aris%, R. Lee%, Tcbapo, Trigon^ PRESENT (1): Janet% BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 23/19 (AI=2.0) POPULARITY: 0.250 OUTCOME: REJECTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8422 (No More Numbers!) AUTHOR: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus CLASS: DEMOCRATIC FOR (12): ATMunn, Aris, Falsifian, G., Janet, Kate, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, R. Lee, Tcbapo, Trigon$, nix AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 37/0 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 1.000 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8423 (Removing Repetition) AUTHOR: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: EFFICIENCY FOR (9): ATMunn, Falsifian%, G., Janet%, Kate, Madrid, R. Lee%, Tcbapo, Trigon^ AGAINST (2): Aris%, nix PRESENT (1): Publius Scribonius Scholasticus BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 36/8 (AI=2.0) POPULARITY: 0.583 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8424 (Certifiable Patches) AUTHOR: Aris CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: LEGISLATION FOR (5): Aris&, Falsifian, Janet&, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus AGAINST (5): G., Kate, R. Lee, Tcbapo, nix PRESENT (2): ATMunn, Trigon^ BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 23/15 (AI=1.0) POPULARITY: 0.000 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8425 (Impossibility Defense) AUTHOR: Aris CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: JUSTICE FOR (8): ATMunn, Aris%, G.%, Janet, Kate, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus%, Trigon^ AGAINST (2): R. Lee, Tcbapo PRESENT (2): Falsifian, nix BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 33/6 (AI=2.0) POPULARITY: 0.500 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8426 (Impracticability Defense) AUTHOR: Aris CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: JUSTICE FOR (7): ATMunn, Aris%, G.%, Kate, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus%, Trigon^ AGAINST (2): R. Lee, Tcbapo PRESENT (3): Falsifian, Janet, nix BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 30/6 (AI=2.0) POPULARITY: 0.417 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8427 (Slap on the wrist) AUTHOR: R. Lee CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: JUSTICE FOR (8): Aris%, Janet, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus%, R. Lee, Tcbapo, Trigon^, nix AGAINST (3): Falsifian, G.%, Kate PRESENT (1): ATMunn BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 31/11 (AI=2.0) POPULARITY: 0.417 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8428 (Pending Pends) AUTHOR: Aris CLASS: DEMOCRATIC FOR (10): Aris, Falsifian, G., Janet, Kate, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, R. Lee, Tcbapo, Trigon$ AGAINST (0): PRESENT (2): ATMunn, nix BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 31/0 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 0.833 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8429 (Why Limit Clemency?) AUTHOR: Aris CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: JUSTICE FOR (8): ATMunn, Aris%, G.%, Janet, Kate, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus%, Trigon^ AGAINST (2): R. Lee, Tcbapo PRESENT (2): Falsifian, nix BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 33/6 (AI=1.7) POPULARITY: 0.500 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] PROPOSAL 8430 (Silver Quill 2016) AUTHOR: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus CLASS: ORDINARY CHAMBER: PARTICIPATION FOR (12): ATMunn, Aris%, Falsifian, G., Janet%, Kate, Madrid, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus&, R. Lee, Tcbapo, Trigon^, nix AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 12 AI (F/A): 47/0 (AI=2.0) POPULARITY: 1.000 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Kate: Endorsement of G. Tcbapo: Endorsement of R. Lee ] The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below: ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8409 Title: College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: [I fixed the problems pointed out with the last version. I also added an A.N.A. degree (I hadn't done so previously, because I thought it was unnecessary, but exceptions are messy). I rephrased and reordered some things too.] Amend Rule 1367, "Degrees", by changing it to read as follows: Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are - Associate of Nomic Artistry (A.N.A.) - Associate of Nomic (A.N.) - Juris Doctorate of Nomic (J.N.) - Baccalaureate of Nomic Artistry (B.N.A.) - Baccalaureate of Nomic (B.N.) - Magisteriate of Nomic Artistry (M.N.A) - Magisteriate of Nomic (M.N.) - Doctorate of Nomic Artistry (D.N.Art.) - Doctorate of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.) - Doctorate of Nomic Law (D.N.Law.) - Doctorate of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.) - Doctorate of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.) There are four classes of degrees, ranked in ascending order of merit: Associate degrees (A.N.A. and A.N.), Baccalaureate degrees (J.N through B.N.), Magisteriate degrees (M.N.A and M.N), and Doctorate degrees (D.N.Art. through D.N.Phil.). A specified degree CAN be awarded by any player other than the awardee, with 2 Agoran consent. It SHOULD only be awarded for the publication of an original thesis of scholarly worth (including responses to peer-review), published with explicit intent to qualify for a degree. The Herald SHOULD coordinate the peer-review process and the awarding of degrees. Degrees SHOULD be awarded according to the extent to which the thesis contributes to Nomic culture or thought: Associate degrees for an appreciable contribution, Baccalaureate degrees for a substantial contribution, Magisteriate degrees for a remarkable contribution, and Doctorate degrees for an exceptional contribution. Any degree at the Doctorate level SHOULD take into account the awardee's academic history and participation in Agora over time. Theses for Artistry degrees SHOULD demonstrate substantial creativity and need not be in written form. Theses for all other degrees SHOULD demonstrate substantial research or analysis. J.N. and D.N.Law are appropriate for high-quality legal analysis, of the sort typical to CFJs, but exceeding an ordinary CFJ in depth. The D.N.Hist. degree is appropriate for historical research, especially when it presents a narrative that educates Agorans about the events of the past. The D.N.Sci. degree is appropriate for theses that demonstrate concrete or scientific thinking, whereas the D.N.Phil. is appropriate for theses that demonstrate abstract or philosophical thinking. Rename every instance of the first listed patent title on each row to the second listed patent title on each row: - Juris Doctor of Nomic, Juris Doctorate of Nomic - Doctor of Nomic History, Doctorate of Nomic History - Doctor of Nomic Law, Doctorate of Nomic Law - Doctor of Nomic Science, Doctorate of Nomic Science - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy, Doctorate of Nomic Philosophy ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8410 Title: Promise Powers Patch Adoption index: 2.2 Author: Aris Co-authors: [There was a bug in my original version (in the sense of it doing something other than what I intended); I solved the problem of people acting on behalf of their zombies to enter promises by putting an "acting as emself" requirement, forgetting that this also affected contracts and stopped promises from creating other promises. This proposal remedies my error.] Amend the rule entitled "Promises" by deleting the text "acting as emself, ". Amend Rule 2532, "Zombies", by changing the text "- enter a contract, pledge, or other type of agreement" to read "- enter a contract, pledge, promise, or other type of agreement" ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8411 Title: Contract Lawyers Adoption index: 1.0 Author: R. Lee Co-authors: Amend Rule 2581 "Official Patent Titles" by appending the following list item at the end of the list items but before the last paragraph {- Terms of Service, awardable by the Notary to any player who creates multiple Contracts that achieve fun gameplay and significantly impacts Agora as a whole} ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8412 Title: Small Pledge Amendments Adoption index: 1.7 Author: R. Lee Co-authors: Amend rule 2450 "Pledges" by inserting the following sentence after the words "explicitly states otherwise": {It is also Oathbreaking for a player to let a pledge expire without taking an action e pledged to do in that pledge.} Also amend the same rule by replacing the text {and should do so if and only if the pledge no longer serves any significant purpose.} with the new text {but SHOULD NOT do so unless the pledge no longer serves any significant purpose.} [Nonbinding comment: The first one is a very common type of pledge but I'm worried that they are unenforceable. This does not extend the time limit forever because it is a crime for the pledge to expire and there is a universal 14-day statute of limitations from that point. The second amendment is just to capitalize something that should be capitalised and make the sentence a bit better] ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8413 Title: Why Track Pendency? Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: [Currently, Sets would make me track proposals forever. The simplest fix is just to make the Pended switch untracked. It'll end up getting effectively tracked anyway, since it determines whether a proposal must be distributed.] Amend the rule entitled "Pending Proposals" by changing the text "Pended is a negative boolean proposal switch tracked by the Promotor." to read "Pended is an untracked negative boolean proposal switch." ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8415 Title: Proposal Recycling Initiative Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: [This helps for any proposals that either were distributed before the new regime and failed quorum, or any proposals that are accidentally distributed and failed quorum. While I'm at it, there's no reason this needs to be at power 3.0.] Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by deleting the text: If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once add the proposal back to the Proposal Pool by announcement. Enact a new rule entitled "Proposal Recycling", with the following text: If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once recycle the proposal by announcement, adding it to the Proposal Pool and causing it to become pended. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8416 Title: Identity theft protection act v1.1 Adoption index: 3.1 Author: Falsifian Co-authors: G., Publius Scribonius Scholasticus Amend Rule 2141 by replacing the text Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor. with Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and former rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor. [Comment: this version is designed to prevent the Rulekeepor from assigning the same ID to two rules in addition to the protection against changing IDs.] ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8417 Title: Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: G. [I've gone with making this an "honest" popularity system, not affected by manipulatable mechanics such as proposal strength.] Amend the rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" by changing it to read in full: For an Agoran decision on whether to adopt a proposal, let F be the total number of valid ballots resolving to FOR, A be the same for AGAINST, and T be the total number of valid ballots. The decision's popularity is equal to (F - A)/T. The Assessor SHOULD publish the popularity of each decision when resolving it. The player who proposed the adopted proposal such that the decision on whether to adopt it had the greatest popularity, among all such decisions assessed in the last 7 days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by announcement, provided that no decision on whether to adopt any proposal distributed in the same message remains unresolved. If there is a tie, all authors of the tied proposals can do so once each. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8418 Title: Referenda Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Amend Rule 1607, "Distribution", by replacing: Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption index is initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if the proposal does not have one, and the text, author, coauthors, class and (if applicable) chamber of the proposal are essential parameters. Initiating such a decision is known as distribution, and removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool. with: A referendum is the Agoran decision to determine whether to adopt a proposal. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption index is initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if the proposal does not have one, and the text, author, coauthors, class and (if applicable) chamber of the proposal are essential parameters. Initiating a referendum is known as distribution, and removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool. Amend Rule 2606, "Proposal Classes", by changing the text "Agoran decision on its adoption" to read "referendum on it". Amend Rule 2607, "Proposal Chambers", by changing the text "Agoran decision on its adoption" to read "referendum on it". Amend Rule 106, "Adopting Proposals", by changing the text "a decision about whether to adopt a proposal" to read "a referendum on a proposal". Amend Rule 879, "Quorum", by changing the text "the Agoran decision on whether to adopt a proposal" to read "the referendum". Amend Rule 2168, "Extending the voting period", by changing the text "whether to adopt a proposal" to read "a referendum on a proposal". Amend Rule 2496, Rewards, by changing the text "FOR the decision" to read "FOR the referendum" and replacing: Resolving an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal, provided that no other Agoran Decision on whether to adopt that or any other proposal had been resolved earlier in that Agoran week: 5 coins (ADoP). with: Resolving a referendum, provided that no other referendum had been resolved earlier in that Agoran week: 5 coins (ADoP). Amend Rule 2438, "Ribbons", by changing the text "an Agoran Decision" to read "a referendum". If the proposal entitled "Properly Prioritized Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" has passed: Amend the Rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" by changing it to read in full: For a referendum, let F be the total number of valid ballots resolving to FOR, A be the same for AGAINST, and T be the total number of valid ballots. The referendum's popularity is equal to (F - A)/T. The Assessor SHOULD publish the popularity of each referendum when resolving it. The player who proposed the adopted proposal whose referendum had the greatest popularity among all referenda assessed in the last 7 days CAN once earn one Legislative Card by announcement, provided that no referendum initiated in the same message as it remains unresolved. If there is a tie, all authors of the tied proposals can do so once each. Otherwise: Amend the rule entitled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" by changing the text "provided that no decision on whether to adopt any proposal distributed in the same message remains open." to read "provided that no referendum initiated in the same message remains open." [Note: One of these will fail.] Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by changing the text "If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days" to read "If a referendum on a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days". Amend the rule entitled "Proposal Recycling" by changing "If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days" to read "If a referendum on a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days". ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8422 Title: No More Numbers! Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus Co-authors: G., Trigon, Aris, nix Remove the text ", as described in Rule 478" from Rule 2139, "The Registrar". Remove the text "as described in Rule 1789" from Rule 2139, "The Registrar". Remove the text "identified in Rule 1728" in Rule 2595. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8423 Title: Removing Repetition Adoption index: 2.0 Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus Co-authors: G. Remove the final paragraph and all included list items from Rule 2139, "The Registrar". ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8424 Title: Certifiable Patches Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: nix, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus [This may be over-clear, but should be CFJ proof.] Enact a new power 1.0 rule, entitled "Certifiable Patches", with the following text: Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as a patch), causing it to become pending. A player SHALL NOT certify a proposal unless its sole function is to minimally rectify a bug, error, or ambiguity (a problem) that relates to a) an office e holds; or b) a CFJ, open within the last week, of which e is the judge. Certifying a proposal in violation of this paragraph is the Class-4 Crime of Uncertain Certification. A player certifying a proposal SHOULD explain why doing so does not violate this paragraph. For the purposes of this rule: 1. A bug is a situation in which a rule operates in a way that is clearly contrary to legislative intent or common sense. 2. An error is a change introduced by apparent mistake, such as the self-ratification of an incorrect report or a typo in a rule amendment. 3. An ambiguity is a state of affairs in which reasonable players could disagree about the operation of the rules or the state of a rule defined property. 4. A minimal rectification is one that resolves the problem without doing substantially more than is necessary to resolve it. For instance, rectification that uses more slightly words than necessary to resolve the problem may still be minimal, whereas a rectification that makes rule changes unrelated to fixing the problem would not be. 5. A problem relates to an office if it plausibly affects the area of the game the office is responsible for and relates to a CFJ if it could plausibly be interpreted to affect that CFJ's outcome. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8425 Title: Impossibility Defense Adoption index: 2.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Amend 2531, "Defendant's Rights", by adding the following after item (2) of the second numbered list: (3) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for failure to take an action that e, through no fault of eir own, COULD NOT have performed; (4) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for conduct that e, through no fault of eir own, was obliged to undertake by a rule of equal or greater power to the one e violated; and renumbering the list accordingly. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8426 Title: Impracticability Defense Adoption index: 2.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Amend 2531, "Defendant's Rights", by adding the following to the second numbered list as a new item immediately before the item beginning "it attempts to levy a fine with a value": "it attempts to levy a fine on a person taking an action or inaction e could not have avoided when exercising the highest reasonably possible standard of care;" ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8427 Title: Slap on the wrist Adoption index: 2.0 Author: R. Lee Co-authors: Amend rule 2555 "Blots" by replacing the text "To levy a fine of N on a person, where N is a positive integer, is to grant em N blots." with the text "To levy a fine of N on a person, where N is a positive integer or zero, is to grant em N blots" ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8428 Title: Pending Pends Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: [This restores my ability to backdate.] Amend Rule 1607, "Distribution", by replacing: In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each pending proposal that was in the Proposal Pool at the beginning of that week, except for those excepted from automatic distribution by other rules, or those that are otherwise removed from the Pool. with: In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each proposal that was in the Proposal Pool and pending at the beginning of that week, except for those excepted from automatic distribution by other rules, or those that are otherwise removed from the Pool. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8429 Title: Why Limit Clemency? Adoption index: 1.7 Author: Aris Co-authors: [This removes the arbitrary three blot limit on apology clemency.] Amend Rule 2557, "Removing Blots", by replacing: Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable, specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology. If the investigator does so, the perp CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge P blots from emself, where P is the minimum of the value of the fine and 3, by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words and including all the specified words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. with: Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable, specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology. If the investigator does so, the perp CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge P blots from emself, where P is the value of the fine, by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words and including all the specified words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8430 Title: Silver Quill 2016 Adoption index: 2.0 Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus Co-authors: G. ais523 is awarded the patent title of Silver Quill for the year 2016 for eir proposal, "Winning by apathy". //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////