On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chambers
> AI: 3
This proposal still needs a lot of work.
> A player who is a member of an existing public contract CAN make the
> contract into a chamber with Agoran consent.
Similar language has worked okay for contracts, but chambers are much
more critical. It should be made clear that nothing else is a
chamber, and that this is the only way to create a chamber.
> The authority index of a chamber is an rational number from 0
> to 4, and is by default 0.
Why rational? Why not restrict it to multiples of 0.1, for
consistency with adoption index?
> A player CAN set the authority index of any
> chamber to any valid value with Agoran consent.
IMO, this should be "with 3 Agoran consent", i.e. the equivalent of an
AI=3 proposal.
> A chamber CAN through its own
> internal mechanisms increase or decrease the power of any proposal by
> an amount less than or equal to its authority index as a result of an
> Agoran Decision regarding the acceptance of that proposal in that
> chamber.
It can do so more than once for the same proposal? And a chamber can
hold an Agoran Decision regarding a proposal even if the proposal has
not been formally distributed to that chamber?
> Whenever the power of a proposal ever is equal to or exceeds its
Redundant "ever".
> adoption index then the proposal then the Rulekeepor SHALL adopt that
Extraneous "then the proposal".
> proposal in a timely fashion.
This still has ugly timing issues in the case where a terrible
proposal gets enough power to adopt it; meanwhile, proceedings in
another chamber would cause the proposal to fail but occur too slowly.
This is a real issue, since scammers are typically able to plan and
thus move faster than efforts to oppose them can be organised. At the
very least, it gives too much power to the Promotor and Assessor.
For me to even consider voting for this, the condition for adopting a
proposal must be something like "the power of the proposal exceeds 1,
the power of the proposal is equal to or exceeds its adoption index,
the proposal has been in the proposal pool for at least a week, and
the proposal is not currently at vote in any chamber."
> The Promotor SHALL distribute each such requested proposal to
> the specified chamber in a timely fashion unless that proposal has
> already been distributed to that chamber previously.
Redundant "previously".
> The Promotor CAN remove any proposal from the proposal pool which the
> author has not requested to be distributed within the past two weeks
> or which has a negitive power. The Promotor SHALL remove any such
> propoal from the pool in a timely fashion.
Typoed "negative", typoed "proposal".
> The Promotor distributes a proposal by publishing it with the clear
> intent of distributing it.
"...in a specific chamber."
> a) Its author (and co-authors, if any).
> b) Its interest index.
> c) The specified chamber.
d) Its adoption index.
> Amend R2019 ("Prerogitives") by replacing:
Typoed "Prerogatives". Probably still succeeds in unambiguously
identifying the rule to be amended, but the Rulekeepor might not see
it that way.
> c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto any proposal in the
> proposal pool by announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1.
And then e can do it again, and again, and again...
> Create the following contract and cause it to become a chamber with an
> authority index of 1:
> {{
> 1. The name of this contract is the Ordinary Chamber. This is a public
> contract.
Currently, the AI of an ordinary proposal can go up to 1.9. Mightn't
we want the authority of the ordinary chamber to go that high as well?
-root
