Sean Hunt | 17 Apr 20:11 2014
Picon
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: 'Cause I really really really really hate

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:29 PM, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
      - Yellow Card, intended for less serious or justifiable
        infractions.  When a person who has received a Yellow Card in
        the current week receives points, e only earns half as many as
        e otherwise would, rounded up.

This means the effectiveness of this punishment depends heavily on when this is awarded relative to proposal resolution in a given week; not sure if that's by design or a flaw.
 
Amend Rule 2421 (Points Awards) by replacing "beginning of each Agoran
week" with "end of each Agoran week" [so it can be affected by Yellow
Cards].

By my time model for Agora, these are equivalent. I'd be sad if you broke it :(

Sean
Kerim Aydin | 17 Apr 19:53 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: 'Cause I really really really really hate


On Thu, 17 Apr 2014, omd wrote:
>       - Yellow Card, intended for less serious or justifiable
>         infractions.  When a person who has received a Yellow Card in
>         the current week receives points, e only earns half as many as
>         e otherwise would, rounded up.

This seems a bit open to abuse and seems cheap (compare Yellow Cards 
awarded on Monday versus Sunday).  I'm wondering about a buy-off plan:
1.  Yellow card is half points indefinitely, or at least 14 days.
2.  You can get rid of a Yellow card by destroying X points;
3.  If you get a Yellow card while you have another one, it's a Red card.

Also, "scorekeepor" is similar to referee concept... is it too much
work for an office to combine the two (I'd go with the referee name)?
Of course, without a scorekeepor currently, it's hard to know where
we are on this....

-G.

Kerim Aydin | 15 Apr 01:20 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless points


On Sun, 13 Apr 2014, omd wrote:
> I hereby announce that scshunt has the highest score and has won Agora.
> 
> AFAIK, the first part is true, as scshunt is currently ahead on
> points, with 2 proposal points plus 20 office points.
> 
> The second part is also true; according to the Herald's report,
> scshunt has won 13 times as of February, more often than any other
> person.
> 
> Therefore, the announcement is true, so per Rule 2419, scshunt now
> wins the game again.
> 
> CFJ 2450 may or may not prove me wrong about this.

Nice find.

I think the difference (as far as I can tell) is that CFJ 2450 involved
a MAY (so it turned out to be illegal but possible to make the announcement) 
while R2419 uses a 'can', albeit an uncapitalized one, (implying that
it is impossible to make such an announcement that triggers the effect).
Could be wrong though.

Sean Hunt | 14 Apr 05:10 2014
Picon
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposal 7631

On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Sean Hunt <scshunt <at> csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
*7631   Nichdel     2  Missing Vote

CoE: scshunt was the author.  This does not affect the resolution.

-scshunt
Ed Murphy | 14 Apr 04:46 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: Revision

scshunt wrote:

> Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgment) by
> a) inserting, between the second and third paragraphs, "The Arbitor is
> an office, responsible for the administration of justice in a manner
> that is fair for emself, if not for the rest of Agora."
> b) replacing the occurrences of "Speaker" with "Arbitor"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6uh7tRh9Jc

Sean Hunt | 11 Apr 18:42 2014
Picon
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Surprise Elections

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, omd wrote:
> Herald: G.
I resign from this office.

Any reason why?

> Speaker: G.
I resign from this office (pointless now).

Removing the voting limit increase was an accident, and you'll notice there's a proposal currently being voted on to undo that accident. I'm sorry!

Sean
Sprocklem | 11 Apr 06:17 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 7631

On 2014-04-06 20:56, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Num   Author     AI  Title
> 7631  scshunt     2  Missing Vote
FOR

--

-- 
Sprocklem

Kerim Aydin | 7 Apr 20:57 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: Activity


On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, khoyobegenn <at> gmail.com wrote:
> I set myself as inactive

Aside:  Is there a reason to keep Activity at all with the
current quorum and judgement rules?

omd | 26 Mar 06:48 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: Revision

LATE COMMENTARY

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Sean Hunt <scshunt <at> csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Repeal Rule 2166 (Assets).

Meh.  It's been a long run.

> Repeal Rule 2288 (Induction).
> Repeal Rule 2280 (Implicit Votes).
> Repeal Rule 2373 (Voting Chambers).
> Repeal Rule 2389 (Ordinary Chamber).
> Repeal Rule 2374 (Democratic Chamber).
> Repeal Rule 2409 (Star Chamber).
FOR
> Repeal Rule 2276 (Assumption of Vacant Offices).
> Repeal Rule 2395 (Government Waste).

> Enact a new power-2 rule entitled "Score", reading as follows:
>       Score is a player switch, with default 0 and possible values all
>       non-negative integers.

Hmm... this would make Score momentarily defined by both this rule and
R2419; since everyone has a score that wouldn't be a possible value by
this definition, scores all go to default?  Well, maybe only after
R2419 is amended if "a player's Score is a complex number" counts as a
conflict.  A bit weird to leave that implicit.

>       If any player has a score of at least 250, then any player who
>       has at least as much score as any other player can make an
>       announcement naming all players with the highest score and
>       indicating that they have won Agora.

This wording is somewhat odd, since anyone can make such an
announcement at any time.  You know better than that.

>       reset to default. The beginning of a new game does not cause
>       any changes to
>
>       the game state not specified by the rules; in particular, Agora does
>       not end and the ruleset remains unchanged.

Paragraph break?

> Amend Rule 2160 (Deputisation) by appending:
>       When a player deputises for an office, e becomes the holder of
>       that office.

Hmm, why not.

> Amend Rule 2154 (Election Procedure) by
> a) deleting "or the office is Assumed" and
> b) deleting bullets 2) and 3) and renumbering that list accordingly

Can we just get rid of elections unless we're actually going to do
something with them, like the constants-set-as-part-of-campaign
suggestion?  (Wasn't that in the rules at some point?)

I guess without elections, you'd be left with deposing people by
deputising for them, which might cause more rancor than necessary; on
the other hand, that sounds a little fun (similar to the old Pariah
mechanism).

> Amend Rule 2138 (The Interstellar Associate Director of Personnel) by
> a) deleting the words "and reports" and
> b) replacing bullet c) with:
>       c) The date on which the most recent election for that office
>          was initiated.

Why do you want the IADoP to no longer track reports?  Speaking for
myself, I usually don't notice when someone has stopped publishing
reports if I'm not particularly interested in their contents.
(Speaking of which, I have an IADoP report to publish...)

> Amend Rule 107 (Initiating Agoran Decisions) by deleting item (b)
> in the list and renumbering it accordingly.

Okay.

>       Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.

>       An Agoran decision with an adoption index has the following
>       essential parameters:
>
>       a) Its adoption index.
>       b) Its author (and co-authors, if any).

Just say proposal.

> Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgment) by
> a) inserting, between the second and third paragraphs, "The Arbitor is
> an office, responsible for the administration of justice in a manner
> that is fair for emself, if not for the rest of Agora."

What's the point?  It's not like the Speaker has much else to do.

Also, might want to remove

      The Speaker SHALL assign judges over time such that all
      interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.

Kerim Aydin | 25 Mar 18:09 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal


On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Sean Hunt <scshunt <at> csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > Based on a conversation in ##nomic:
> >
> > Proposal: Do Things (AI=3, Democratic)
> 
> I retract this proposal. Fixed version without random line breaks and
> bringing back the CotC to come shortly.

Just an opinion this time.  YMMV.

Bringing it back *as CotC* seems wholly unimaginative and boring, and
just what we don't want to go back to.  That's why I suggested moving
the winner to Gov. Waste and keeping judgement with the Speaker.

Most of my changes last month were stripping away of things, and I'm
not too attached if those things come back.  And my Scoring Game is
so far... not the best, so I'm happy to see another score refresh.

But the structural change I made, that I *really like*, is to have
the Speaker be an elected position with *extra votes* and some word
in judging.  Makes it an *elected* position that might be worth
fighting for, as it offers some measure of straight power.

So just as a heads-up, I'm going to fight to keep that.

-G.

Benjamin Schultz | 24 Mar 15:16 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: The time has come.


On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:


On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Fool wrote:
> I intend, with Agoran consent, to replace the text of the Operations Manual
> with the lyrics to _Beds are Burning_ by Midnight Oil.
>
> (BTW failure to act in accordance with the operations manual is considered a
> breach of R2419.)

Support.  -G.

I suppose.  (A half-breed of Support and Oppose, or, "I'm just here for the WorldCon bid parties.")

--
OscarMeyr

Gmane