RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8266-8274 ================================= 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/2019-November/013256.html ID Title Result ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8266 Glitter ADOPTED 8267 Emerald Ribbons ADOPTED 8268 Deputisation fix ADOPTED 8269 Clean up distribution mechanisms ADOPTED 8270 Self-ratifying statements ADOPTED 8271 Doctorate expectations ADOPTED 8272 The Fat Director REJECTED 8273 Clean up your own mess, without making a bigger one ADOPTED 8274 Interested proposals REJECTED I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals. The quorum for all below decisions was 8. VOTING STRENGTHS ================ Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted. $: player has voting strength 4 PROPOSALS ========= PROPOSAL 8266 (Glitter) AUTHOR: nix FOR (8): ATMunn, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, Janet, Madrid, Rance AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 8 AI (F/A): 25/0 (AI=1.0) POPULARITY: 1.000 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ ATMunn: Endorsement of Falsifian Bernie: Endorsement of Janet Falsifian: Conditional resolved: no Notice of Veto was published ] PROPOSAL 8267 (Emerald Ribbons) AUTHOR: Janet FOR (8): ATMunn, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, Janet, Madrid, Rance AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 8 AI (F/A): 25/0 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 1.000 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ ATMunn: Endorsement of Falsifian Bernie: Endorsement of Janet ] PROPOSAL 8268 (Deputisation fix) AUTHOR: Janet FOR (8): ATMunn, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, Janet, Madrid, Rance AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 8 AI (F/A): 25/0 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 1.000 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ ATMunn: Endorsement of Falsifian Bernie: Endorsement of Janet ] PROPOSAL 8269 (Clean up distribution mechanisms) AUTHOR: omd FOR (6): Aris, Bernie, G.$, Janet, Madrid, Rance AGAINST (0): PRESENT (2): ATMunn, Falsifian BALLOTS: 8 AI (F/A): 19/0 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 0.750 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ ATMunn: Endorsement of Falsifian Bernie: Endorsement of Janet G.: Endorsement of Aris Rance: Endorsement of Aris ] PROPOSAL 8270 (Self-ratifying statements) AUTHOR: omd FOR (6): Aris, Bernie, G.$, Janet, Madrid, Rance AGAINST (0): PRESENT (2): ATMunn, Falsifian BALLOTS: 8 AI (F/A): 19/0 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 0.750 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ ATMunn: Endorsement of Falsifian Bernie: Endorsement of Janet ] PROPOSAL 8271 (Doctorate expectations) AUTHOR: G. FOR (7): ATMunn, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, Janet, Rance AGAINST (1): Madrid PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 8 AI (F/A): 22/3 (AI=3.0) POPULARITY: 0.750 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ ATMunn: Endorsement of Falsifian Bernie: Endorsement of Janet ] PROPOSAL 8272 (The Fat Director) AUTHOR: Murphy FOR (3): G.$, Madrid, Rance AGAINST (3): ATMunn, Aris, Falsifian PRESENT (2): Bernie, Janet BALLOTS: 8 AI (F/A): 10/9 (AI=2.0) POPULARITY: 0.000 OUTCOME: REJECTED [ ATMunn: Endorsement of Falsifian Bernie: Endorsement of Janet ] PROPOSAL 8273 (Clean up your own mess, without making a bigger one) AUTHOR: Gaelan FOR (4): ATMunn, Aris, Falsifian, Madrid AGAINST (2): G.$, Rance PRESENT (2): Bernie, Janet BALLOTS: 8 AI (F/A): 12/7 (AI=1.0) POPULARITY: 0.250 OUTCOME: ADOPTED [ ATMunn: Endorsement of Falsifian Bernie: Endorsement of Janet Falsifian: Conditional resolved: no Notice of Veto was published ] PROPOSAL 8274 (Interested proposals) AUTHOR: Murphy FOR (3): ATMunn, Falsifian, Madrid AGAINST (5): Aris, Bernie, G.$, Janet, Rance PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 8 AI (F/A): 9/16 (AI=1.0) POPULARITY: -0.250 OUTCOME: REJECTED [ ATMunn: Endorsement of Falsifian Bernie: Endorsement of Janet Falsifian: Conditional resolved: no Notice of Veto was published ] The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below: ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8266 Title: Glitter Adoption index: 1.0 Author: nix Co-authors: Enact a Power-1 rule titled "Glitter" with the following text { If a player has earned a ribbon in the past 7 days but already owned it e CAN once (until e earns another ribbon), by announcement, earn N+1 coins where N is the number of current players that do not own the same ribbon. } ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8267 Title: Emerald Ribbons Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Janet Co-authors: Amend Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") by appending the following paragraph: Emerald (E): When a person wins an election, e earns an Emerald Ribbon. [There's already a ribbon for deputisation, so why shouldn't there be one for the other way to acquire an office? Also, this is an incentive to initiate and become candidates in elections.] ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8268 Title: Deputisation fix Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Janet Co-authors: Amend Rule 2160 ("Deputisation") by replacing the text "acting on eir own behalf" with the text "acting as emself". [Per CFJ 2637, taking actions within a public message is not acting on the behalf of oneself, so it may currently be impossible to deputise without some shenanigans. "Acting as emself" appears to be the standard way of phrasing this requirement.] ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8269 Title: Clean up distribution mechanisms Adoption index: 3.0 Author: omd Co-authors: Amend Rule 1607 (Distribution) by replacing; The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal Pool at any time, by announcement. with: The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal Pool at any time. [The "by announcement" is redundant with Rule 107's 'notice publication' method, and IIRC there was a judgement that the two rules actually provide two separate mechanisms for distributing proposals.] ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8270 Title: Self-ratifying statements Adoption index: 3.0 Author: omd Co-authors: [Create a mechanism for a public message to be defined as self-ratifying a statement that's not in the message. Currently, Rule 2034 does this in a strange implicit way, by saying that the message "constitutes self-ratifying claims that" such-and-such. I'd call it dubious, but according to CFJ 3618 as recorded in a FLR annotation (I can't find the original judgement), it does work, even if the message in question *explicitly disclaims* the such-and-such. Still, it's better to organize things in a way that avoids counterfactual assumptions. Convert two rules to use the new mechanism: Rule 2034, and Rule 107, which previously vaguely mentioned an error being "correctly identified within one week". The new wording also requires clarity, as I also proposed separately (if both proposal pass, this overwrites the wording from the other).] Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) by replacing: When a public document is ratified with: When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is ratified and by replacing: Ratifying a public document is secured with power threshold 3. with: Ratification is secured with power threshold 3. and by removing: A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message. [moved to R2202] Amend Rule 2202 (Ratification Without Objection) by prepending the paragraph: A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message. Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing: A public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is ratified when it is continuously undoubted for one week. A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the following methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and nature of a perceived error in it: with: When a public document is continuously undoubted for one week after publication: - If the rules define it as self-ratifying, it is ratified. - If the rules define it as a self-ratifying attestation to a given statement, the statement is ratified. This clause is inapplicable if the statement to be ratified cannot be reasonably ascertained from the ruleset and the contents of the message. A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the following methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and nature of a perceived error in it (or in a statement it attests to): Amend Rule 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) by replacing the second sentence with: To be valid, the notice must clearly specify the following information: and by appending the paragraph: A public notice purporting to initiate an Agoran decision is a self-ratifying attestation of the notice's validity. Amend Rule 2034 (Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges) by replacing: A public message purporting to resolve an Agoran decision constitutes self-ratifying claims that with: A public message purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is a self-ratifying attestation that ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8271 Title: Doctorate expectations Adoption index: 3.0 Author: G. Co-authors: [Puts in a time requirement for Doctorates, also fixes bug] Change the Power of Rule 1367 (Degrees) to 2. [I've wondered for a while why we need this at 3!] Amend Rule 1367 (Degrees) by replacing its last paragraph with: 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. Any degree with D.N. as part of its abbreviation SHOULD take into account the awardee's academic history and participation in Agora over time. The Herald SHOULD coordinate the peer-review process and the awarding of degrees. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ID: 8273 Title: Clean up your own mess, without making a bigger one Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Gaelan Co-authors: Janet Remove the following paragraph from Rule 2139 “The Registrar”: { The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches, defined in a rule, that would otherwise lack an officer to track them, unless the switch is defined as untracked. } Create a power-1 rule titled “Switch Responsibility” with the following text: { For each type of switch which would otherwise lack an officer to track it, and is not defined as untracked, there exists an imposed office named “Tracker of [switch name]” that is responsible for tracking that switch. } [1006/44 states: When a proposal takes effect and creates a new office, if the proposal does not specify otherwise, the author of that proposal becomes the holder of the office. I think this works, but we might need to clarify the meaning of “creates a new office” to be sure.] //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////