> On May 5, 2026, at 11:16 AM, Cosmo via agora-official > <[email protected]> wrote: > > ================= > PROMOTOR'S REPORT > ================= > > > I initiate a referendum on each of the following proposals, removing > them from the proposal pool. For each referendum the vote collector is the > Assessor, the quorum is 5, the adoption index is that of the associated > proposal, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR > and AGAINST. (PRESENT and conditional votes are also both valid votes.) > > ID Author AI Name > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 9338* Galle 3.0 Claim of Error Withdrawal > 9339~ Nilrem+ 2.2 Unbearable Confusion > 9340* Galle 3.0 Simultaneous Rule Changes Fix > 9341* Murphy 3.0 Alternative simultaneous rule changes v1.1 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > The proposal pool contains the following proposals (self-ratifying): > Author AI Name > ------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > Legend: > NNNN*: Democratic proposal > NNNN~: Ordinary proposal > NAME+: Coauthors listed below > > The full text of all above mentioned proposals is listed below. Where the > information shown below differs from the information shown above, the > information shown above shall control. > > ========== > ID 9338 > Claim of Error Withdrawal (AI=3.0) > author: Galle > coauthors: > > > Amend Rule 2201, "Self-Ratification", by inserting the following paragraph > immediately before the final paragraph: > --- > As long as the publisher of the original document has not yet responded in > any of the above ways, the issuer of a doubt CAN, by announcement, withdraw > the doubt, causing it to cease to be a doubt. The above notwithstanding, the > publisher of the original document NEED NOT respond to a withdrawn doubt. > --- > > > > > ========== > ID 9339 > Unbearable Confusion (AI=2.2) > author: Nilrem > coauthors: ais523 > > > Create a new Rule with power 2.2 Titled "Temporary Helper" with the following > text: > > This rule takes priority over rule 2618. > > The text of a promise CAN be altered after it was created by > proposals with Adoption Index 2.2 or greater. > > For each existing promise, modify its text by replacing all instances of > the phrase "the bearer" with the phrase "the casher". > > Repeal the Rule titled "Temporary Helper". > > Modify Rule 2618 by replacing the following text: > > In a promise's text, "the bearer" and "the casher" (or the like) > both refer to the player who cashed the promise, and "this > promise" (or the like) refers to the promise. The text of the > promise can refer to the context of the message in which it is > cashed, but the context of the message does not otherwise change > the meaning of the promise. > > With this text: > > In a promise's text, "this promise" (or the like) refers to the > promise. The text of the promise can refer to the context of the > message in which it is cashed, but the context of the message does > not otherwise change the meaning of the promise. > > > > > ========== > ID 9340 > Simultaneous Rule Changes Fix (AI=3.0) > author: Galle > coauthors: > > > Amend Rule 105 ("Rule Changes") by replacing the following text: > --- > A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes > always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. If a specification would > ever be interpreted as causing multiple changes to happen at once, it is > instead interpreted as attempting to cause them to occur separately, in the > order they are listed in the specification. > --- > > With the following text: > --- > A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes > always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. If a specification would > ever be interpreted as causing multiple changes to happen at once, it is > instead interpreted as attempting to cause them to occur separately, in the > order they are listed in the specification. If no such order can be inferred, > then the specified rule changes are void and without effect. > --- > > > > > ========== > ID 9341 > Alternative simultaneous rule changes v1.1 (AI=3.0) > author: Murphy > coauthors: > > > Amend Rule 105 (Rule Changes) by replacing the paragraph containing "A > rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes." with: > > A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. > Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. If a > specification would ever be interpreted as causing multiple > changes to happen at once, it is instead interpreted as attempting > to cause them to occur separately, in the order they are listed in > the specification; or, if no such order is specified, and choosing > one order over another would not make a substantive difference to > the gamestate, then in order of increasing rule number (ties > broken by when the rules were created, earliest to latest). > > [Explicitly allows proposals like "Amend all rules containing X by > replacing X with Y" where it would make no substantive difference which > order those amendments occurred, as long as they all did occur. > > A malformed proposal amounting to "Repeal all or most rules" would be > pretty much guaranteed to make a substantive difference, in which case > this clause would remain silent, and the next paragraph of R105 would > still negate it due to ambiguity.] > > > > > -- > Cosmo > Promotor, Illuminator
I vote as follows: Proposal 9338: FOR Proposal 9339: FOR Proposal 9340: FOR Proposal 9341: FOR I'm somewhat torn 9340 versus 9341. On the one hand, I think 9341 would make things much less fussy. On the other hand, it's a bit clunky compared to the relative clean-ness of 9340 and I haven't been unable to convince myself that it guarantees every attempt to make multiple rule changes will always have a single unambiguous order. Also I would like my proposal to pass, I can't deny that that's a factor. I'll be fine if either fix is adopted, though. - Galle
