RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8645-8654 ================================= 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/2022-March/015752.html ID Title Result ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8645 Some RTRW Clean-Ups ADOPTED 8646 Deputisation rewrite ADOPTED 8647 Birds! REJECTED 8648 Scoring Integer Points ADOPTED 8649 The Devices v1.1 REJECTED 8650 It's an even grayer world. ADOPTED 8651 Temporal Incursion Modification and Exclusion Act ADOPTED 8652 Geometry v3 REJECTED 8653 Device Reconstruction ADOPTED 8654 Cheaters shouldn't prosper ADOPTED I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals. The quorum for all below decisions was 3. The following sponsored adopted proposals have the highest popularity (1.000): 8648 (by snail). VOTING STRENGTHS ================ Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted. !: player has voting strength 1 @: player has voting strength 2 <: player has voting strength 13 -: player has voting strength 15 PROPOSALS ========= PROPOSAL 8645 (Some RTRW Clean-Ups) AUTHOR: ATMunn CLASS: DEMOCRATIC FOR (8): Aris, G., Janet, Madrid!, Murphy, Trigon@, ais523, nix@ AGAINST (1): snail PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 20/3 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 0.778 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Aris: Jason is the Rulekeepor: Endorsement of Janet ] PROPOSAL 8646 (Deputisation rewrite) AUTHOR: Janet CLASS: DEMOCRATIC FOR (7): Aris, G., Janet, Madrid!, Murphy, Trigon@, ais523 AGAINST (1): snail PRESENT (1): nix@ BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 18/3 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 0.667 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Aris: Endorsement of G. ] PROPOSAL 8647 (Birds!) AUTHOR: snail CLASS: ORDINARY FOR (7): G., Madrid!, Murphy, Trigon@, ais523, nix@, snail< AGAINST (2): Aris, Janet- PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 27/18 (AI=2.0) POPULARITY: 0.556 OUTCOME: REJECTED [ nix: Endorsement of snail ] PROPOSAL 8648 (Scoring Integer Points) AUTHOR: snail CLASS: ORDINARY FOR (9): Aris, G., Janet-, Madrid!, Murphy, Trigon@, ais523, nix@, snail< AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 45/0 (AI=1.0) POPULARITY: 1.000 OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8649 (The Devices v1.1) AUTHOR: Murphy CLASS: ORDINARY FOR (3): Madrid!, Murphy, nix@ AGAINST (5): Aris, G., Janet-, ais523, snail< PRESENT (1): Trigon@ BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 6/37 (AI=1.0) POPULARITY: -0.222 OUTCOME: REJECTED [ Aris: Endorsement of ais523 ] PROPOSAL 8650 (It's an even grayer world.) AUTHOR: Janet CLASS: ORDINARY FOR (6): Aris, Janet-, Madrid!, Murphy, Trigon@, ais523 AGAINST (3): G., nix@, snail< PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 27/18 (AI=1.0) POPULARITY: 0.333 OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8651 (Temporal Incursion Modification and Exclusion Act) AUTHOR: Janet CLASS: DEMOCRATIC FOR (7): Aris, G., Janet, Madrid!, Murphy, ais523, nix@ AGAINST (1): snail PRESENT (1): Trigon@ BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 18/3 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 0.667 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ nix: Endorsement of G. ] PROPOSAL 8652 (Geometry v3) AUTHOR: snail CLASS: ORDINARY FOR (5): Madrid!, Murphy, Trigon@, nix@, snail< AGAINST (4): Aris, G., Janet-, ais523 PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 21/24 (AI=1.0) POPULARITY: 0.111 OUTCOME: REJECTED [ nix: Endorsement of snail ] PROPOSAL 8653 (Device Reconstruction) AUTHOR: ais523 CLASS: ORDINARY FOR (6): Aris, Janet-, Madrid!, Murphy, Trigon@, ais523 AGAINST (3): G., nix@, snail< PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 27/18 (AI=1.0) POPULARITY: 0.333 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ Janet: Endorsement of ais523 ] PROPOSAL 8654 (Cheaters shouldn't prosper) AUTHOR: G. CLASS: ORDINARY FOR (7): G., Janet-, Madrid!, Murphy, Trigon@, ais523, nix@ AGAINST (1): Aris PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 8 AI (F/A): 29/3 (AI=1.7) POPULARITY: 0.750 OUTCOME: ADOPTED The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below: ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8645 Title: Some RTRW Clean-Ups Adoption index: 3.0 Author: ATMunn Co-authors: nix Amend R2464 by replacing "set of regulations," with "a set of regulations,". Amend R2493 by: * replacing "an textual entity" with "a textual entity"; and * replacing "an person" with "a person". Amend R2495 by replacing "This title" with "These regulations". Amend R2471 by replacing "be not to be true" with "be not true". Amend R2602 by removing any quotation marks and replacing "or e corresponding" with "or the corresponding". ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8646 Title: Deputisation rewrite Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Janet Co-authors: G., ais523 Amend Rule 2160 ("Deputisation") by replacing the sole list with the following: { 1. the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (this requirement is fulfilled by the deputy performing the action); and, it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office; and, the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing so by deputisation or by temporary deputisation; and, the deputy has not held the office in the past 7 days; and, 2. any of the following are true: (A) the office is vacant; (B) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired, the office's holder has not changed in the past 7 days, and any of the following are true: (i) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action; (ii) the time limit expired between 14 days ago and 28 days ago; (iii) the time limit expired more than 28 days ago and the deputisation is temporary; } [This simplifies the list significantly, hopefully making it clearer. It also makes the following substantive changes: allows only temporarily deputisation (or deputisation with notice) for old duties, prohibits deputies who have held the office in the past 7 days, and prohibits deputising for an office whose holder has changed in the past 7 days, to allow a holder time to catch up when they assume a new office, and to prevent rapid-fire changes resulting from deputisation fights.] ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8648 Title: Scoring Integer Points Adoption index: 1.0 Author: snail Co-authors: Amend Rule 2657 (Scoring) by replacing "add to that player's score the associated amount of points" with "add to that player's score the floor of the associated amount of points". (This would let players score points for proposals with non-integer AIs.) ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8650 Title: It's an even grayer world. Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Janet Co-authors: Repeal Rule 2602 (Glitter). ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8651 Title: Temporal Incursion Modification and Exclusion Act Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Janet Co-authors: Aris, Oerjan Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) to read, in whole: { A retroactive change is one that changes the game's record of past events. Retroactive changes are secured with power threshold 3. When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is to be ratified, the following definitions apply: * The publication time is the instant at which the document to be ratified was published. * The truth time is the instant at which the document specifies that it was true, or the publication time if such an instant is not specified. * The application time is the instant at which the document to be ratified is ratified. Ratification CANNOT occur if the truth time would be after the application time, or if the publication time would be after the application time. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, when a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the truth time, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate as possible. Ratification CANNOT occur if it would add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules. Ratification CANNOT occur if the required modification to the gamestate is not possible or if multiple substantially distinct possible modifications would be equally appropriate. If the minimal modification would include past or present rule changes, they are instead excluded unless the ratified document explicitly and unambiguously recites either the changes or the resulting properties of the rule(s). An internally inconsistent document generally CANNOT be ratified; however, if such a document can be divided into a summary section and a main section, where the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize information in the main section, and the main section is internally consistent, ratification of the document proceeds as if it contained only the main section. Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification. The rules may define additional information that is considered to be part of the document for the purposes of ratification; such definitions are secured with power threshold 3. Ratification is secured with power threshold 3. } [This is mostly intended to be a clarification; it shouldn't change how ratification is supposed to work, except that it explicitly excludes silent rule changes from the modification (it's currently ambiguous whether they're excluded or make the whole ratification fail). This also secures all retroactive changes, where retroactive changes are defined as altering the game's record of the past. This mirrors the way that Falsifian found ratification works in eir law thesis.] ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8653 Title: Device Reconstruction Adoption index: 1.0 Author: ais523 Co-authors: In rule 2654, replace: {{{ * If a Device has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge that Device CAN assign it to emself without 3 objections. * The Rulekeepor SHOULD also include any other information which e feels may be helpful in the use of the Device in the FLR. * Then, the Device changes, following which each active player gains 1 card of each type and eir grant (if any). }}} with {{{ * If a Device has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge that Device CAN assign it to emself without 3 objections. * Then, the Device changes, following which each active player gains 1 card of each type and eir grant (if any). * The Rulekeepor SHOULD also include any other information which e feels may be helpful in the use of the Device in the FLR. }}} [The current version of the rule makes drastic changes to the economy on a very vaguely defined trigger (possibly dependent on the Rulekeepor's mental state) which might potentially be set off without us realising it. This reorders the sections of the rule to make the trigger something that we have more control over - this is the order I had in mind when trying to construct the Device originally.] ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8654 Title: Cheaters shouldn't prosper Adoption index: 1.7 Author: G. Co-authors: [ - clarifies timing of JC grant paragraph - the default penalty is 2 blots. a set-complete JC removes 2.5 blots. A perp shouldn't profit from their crime by pointing at themselves and getting a JC for it. So this removes self-points from the counting. ] Amend Rule 2478 (Vigilante Justice) by replacing: The player who initiated the most Finger Pointings that resulted in a Warning, Indictment, or Cold Hand of Justice in the previous Agoran Week CAN once grant emself a Justice Card by announcement. with: The player who initiated the most Finger Pointings at other players that, in the previous Agoran Week, resulted in a Warning, Indictment, or Cold Hand of Justice, CAN once grant emself a Justice Card by announcement. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////