On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:58, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 12:52 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: >> ais523 wrote: >> >> > Well, I think the democratisation didn't work for slightly different >> > reasons; woggle intended to make a non-existent (at the time) Agoran >> > decision democratic. As it happens, a proposal was assigned the number >> > 5707, and there was an Agoran decision about it; but a different >> > proposal (there were 7 in the pool at the time IIRC) could have been >> > assigned that number, or the number might not have been used due to a >> > Promotor mistake, for instance. So I don't think that the intent was >> > unambiguous, and unambiguity is needed for an intent to work. >> >> woggle stated eir intent in response to the Monster's alleged deputy >> distribution of 5707, which was only later determined to have been >> invalid because the Promotor wasn't required to distribute it until the >> following week. That's unambiguous enough in my book, especially since >> that same proposal did get ID number 5707 when the PNP distributed it. >> >> I'm curious, I looked up this context in the archives and you made this >> comment: >> >> > I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the Promotor to assign >> > this proposal the ID number 5707 (believing a lower number would be >> > confusing, as the PerlNomic Partnership has already reserved all lower >> > numbers for proposals it's tried and failed to distribute). >> >> but I don't remember the PNP publishing any invalid attempts to >> distribute (except for an early test run, and one of my proposals where >> someone entered the wrong AI). Were you referring to someone activating >> a "publish what's in the pool" script containing some "not until more >> time passes and/or more proposals are added" logic, or what? > There were 6 proposals in the pool at the time (7 after the proposal), > and the PNP tends to distribute proposals in the order they were > submitted unless there are at least 10 in the pool. The PNP wasn't told > about 5707 until after 5701-6 had been distributed so that it would > distribute it in a distribution by its own, but that was simply because > it was the most convenient way to do it; that part of the scam could > equally well have been done by removing 5701-6 from PerlNomic's notion > of what the pool was, distributing 5707, and re-adding them (and thus > the proposal called 5707 in the current gamestate would instead have > been 5701), and the only reason it wasn't done that way was that it > would have been more typing. In other words, which proposal would get > the number 5707 was far from certain until it was actually distributed.
I assume you're arguing then, that your purported monster-deputisation to assign that ID number was ineffective? -woggle
