DIS: Re: OFF: ruleset erratum

On 3/31/07, Zefram <zefram <at> fysh.org> wrote:
> Created by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999
> Amended(1) by Proposal 1922 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001
> Amended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001
>
> The proposal number for amendment 1 is obviously wrong.  I can't tell
> what it's meant to be, because neither the ruleset RCS history nor the
> mail archives go back that far.  I'm therefore just removing the proposal
> clause from that log entry, for the time being.

The proposal number is 4129.  Quoting from H. Assessor t's Voting
Report from 28 March, 2001:

-----begin quote-----
Proposal #4129 by Goethe, AI=1
Create Bards

Amend Rule 1922 (Defined Regular Patent Titles), by appending to the end
of
the Rule:

    (c)  A Patent Title (non-unique) now will
         Be known as "Bard", and granted those with wit.
         In order for one Title to be filled,
         A level of Support must call for it.

         Three players to a fourth may grant this name
         If these three write as 1, with 2 Support.
         A current Bard may also grant the same,
         Provided that a second Bard's a sport.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: ruleset erratum

Michael Slone wrote:
>The proposal number is 4129.

Thanks.  Noted.

>Quoting from H. Assessor t's Voting Report from 28 March, 2001:

What is the nature of the archive in which you looked this up?

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Herald's Report on Everybody

DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: rule number fix

DIS: Changing officers

Re: DIS: web pages

On 3/29/07, Zefram <zefram <at> fysh.org> wrote:
> Who controls the website at <http://www.agoranomic.org>?  It needs
> updating.  It points at Michael's copy of the ruleset, which
> is now out of date.  I'm henceforth hosting the current ruleset
> at <http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/current_flr.txt>.  The SLR is
> available in the same directory.

Done, thanks :)

--

-- 
Taral <taralx <at> gmail.com>
"You can't prove anything."
    -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem

DIS: Proto-proposal: Excess CFJs

Attempt at cleaning up the Excess CFJ rule. I've used the following
as a basis for this change

1. The use of 'dismiss' is unclear, due to DISMISS being a valid
   judgement for a CFJ, but dismissal through a CFJ being an
   Excess CFJ should be different to dismissal under rule 1565

2. My guess that the Excess CFJ rule is to avoid overloading the
   judicial system, so if there are the resources to judge the
   Excess CFJs, then they should be judged.

Comments welcome. I'm sure some wording could be improved :)

Replace the entire text of rule 2132 with the following text:

      A CFJ submitted by a person who has previously submitted
      five or more CFJs during the same Agoran Week as that CFJ
      is an Excess CFJ.

      An Excess CFJ may be Refused, Deferred or Accepted at
      The Clerk of the Courts discretion.

      If Refused the Excess CFJ shall be treated as if it had
      never been submitted.

      If Deferred the Excess CFJ shall be treated as if it had
      been submitted, by the same person, at the beginning of the
      following Agoran week.

      If Accepted the Excess CFJ shall no longer be considered
      an Excess CFJ.

      The Clerk of the Courts Refuses or Defers the Excess CFJ
      by announcement.

      The Clerk of the Courts indicates acceptance of an Excess
      CFJ by assigning a judge to that CFJ.

Re: DIS: Proto-proposal: Excess CFJs

Levi wrote:

> Attempt at cleaning up the Excess CFJ rule. I've used the following
> as a basis for this change
> 
> 1. The use of 'dismiss' is unclear, due to DISMISS being a valid
>   judgement for a CFJ, but dismissal through a CFJ being an
>   Excess CFJ should be different to dismissal under rule 1565
> 
> 2. My guess that the Excess CFJ rule is to avoid overloading the
>   judicial system, so if there are the resources to judge the
>   Excess CFJs, then they should be judged.
> 
> Comments welcome. I'm sure some wording could be improved :)
> 
> 
> Replace the entire text of rule 2132 with the following text:
> 
>      A CFJ submitted by a person who has previously submitted
>      five or more CFJs during the same Agoran Week as that CFJ
>      is an Excess CFJ.

So far, so good.

>      An Excess CFJ may be Refused, Deferred or Accepted at
>      The Clerk of the Courts discretion.
>           If Refused the Excess CFJ shall be treated as if it had
>      never been submitted.

Agora has been trending away from "deemed", "considered", "treated
as if".  I suggest "If refused, the Excess CFJ ceases to be a CFJ".

>      If Deferred the Excess CFJ shall be treated as if it had
>      been submitted, by the same person, at the beginning of the
>      following Agoran week.

The week following the submission, or the week following the
deferral?

If a player submits more than ten CFJs within the same Agoran week,
should the CotC be able to defer #11 twice, etc.?

>           If Accepted the Excess CFJ shall no longer be considered
>      an Excess CFJ.

"If accepted, the Excess CFJ ceases to be Excess."

>      The Clerk of the Courts Refuses or Defers the Excess CFJ
>      by announcement.
> 
>      The Clerk of the Courts indicates acceptance of an Excess
>      CFJ by assigning a judge to that CFJ.

Agora has been trending away from detailed rules and toward simpler
rules with the same net effect (e.g. the third and fourth paragraphs
of Rule 1006, which replaced several Election rules that explicitly
described nominations and votes).  In this vein, everything after the
first paragraph of this proposal could be replaced with:

"The time limit for assigning a judge to an Excess CFJ is extended
by 106 years."

Re: DIS: Proto-proposal: Excess CFJs

Ed Murphy wrote:
> Levi wrote:
>
>> Attempt at cleaning up the Excess CFJ rule. I've used the following
>> as a basis for this change
>>
>> 1. The use of 'dismiss' is unclear, due to DISMISS being a valid
>>   judgement for a CFJ, but dismissal through a CFJ being an
>>   Excess CFJ should be different to dismissal under rule 1565
>>
>> 2. My guess that the Excess CFJ rule is to avoid overloading the
>>   judicial system, so if there are the resources to judge the
>>   Excess CFJs, then they should be judged.
>>
>> Comments welcome. I'm sure some wording could be improved :)
>>
>>
>> Replace the entire text of rule 2132 with the following text:
>>
>>      A CFJ submitted by a person who has previously submitted
>>      five or more CFJs during the same Agoran Week as that CFJ
>>      is an Excess CFJ.
>
> So far, so good.
>
>>      An Excess CFJ may be Refused, Deferred or Accepted at
>>      The Clerk of the Courts discretion.
>>           If Refused the Excess CFJ shall be treated as if it had
>>      never been submitted.
>
> Agora has been trending away from "deemed", "considered", "treated
> as if".  I suggest "If refused, the Excess CFJ ceases to be a CFJ".
OK. That wording is much better.
>
>>      If Deferred the Excess CFJ shall be treated as if it had
>>      been submitted, by the same person, at the beginning of the
>>      following Agoran week.
>
> The week following the submission, or the week following the
> deferral?
>
> If a player submits more than ten CFJs within the same Agoran week,
> should the CotC be able to defer #11 twice, etc.?
>
>>           If Accepted the Excess CFJ shall no longer be considered
>>      an Excess CFJ.
>
> "If accepted, the Excess CFJ ceases to be Excess."
>
>>      The Clerk of the Courts Refuses or Defers the Excess CFJ
>>      by announcement.
>>
>>      The Clerk of the Courts indicates acceptance of an Excess
>>      CFJ by assigning a judge to that CFJ.
>
> Agora has been trending away from detailed rules and toward simpler
> rules with the same net effect (e.g. the third and fourth paragraphs
> of Rule 1006, which replaced several Election rules that explicitly
> described nominations and votes).
OK. Would it be better to go with something much simpler like 
"<definition of excess CFJ>. The CotC may Refuse an Excess CFJ by 
announcement. The Refused CFJ ceases to be a CFJ"?

> In this vein, everything after the
> first paragraph of this proposal could be replaced with:
>
> "The time limit for assigning a judge to an Excess CFJ is extended
> by 106 years."
>
Is this only due to the deferral process not being specific enough? or 
have I missed something else here?

It was my thought that the CotC would only be able to defer by one week, 
and that the CotC's discretion would be to reject CFJs from someone who 
submitted an unreasonably large number of CFJs. I see now that a 
malicious CotC could use this to make a lot of work for judges (although 
the presence of 'may' in the current rule also means this is possible). 
So it is probably best to leave deferring out and go with the simpler 
option.

Re: DIS: Proto-proposal: Excess CFJs

Levi wrote:

>> In this vein, everything after the
>> first paragraph of this proposal could be replaced with:
>>
>> "The time limit for assigning a judge to an Excess CFJ is extended
>> by 106 years."
>>
> Is this only due to the deferral process not being specific enough? or 
> have I missed something else here?

The idea is that the CotC may effectively accept an Excess CFJ (by
assigning it within the usual time limit), defer it (by assigning it
beyond the usual time limit), or reject it (by failing to assign it
at all).  This could also say "The time limit ... is revoked", but
this may require amending other rules to allow revocation.

"106 years" is a reference to the Terrible Proposals from Nomic World,
which scammed its point awards for voting opposite the majority:
http://www.nomic.net/deadgames/nomicworld/norrish/terrible-proposals.txt

 > It was my thought that the CotC would only be able to defer by one
 > week, and that the CotC's discretion would be to reject CFJs from
 > someone who submitted an unreasonably large number of CFJs. I see now
 > that a malicious CotC could use this to make a lot of work for judges
 > (although the presence of 'may' in the current rule also means this is
 > possible). So it is probably best to leave deferring out and go with
 > the simpler option.

It would also be possible under a new "accept/reject only" rule, as e
could simply accept them all.  The general check on egregious misuse of
an office is the risk of being removed from that office.