I suggest bumping this tomorrow for visibilty during the evening because it's super late in Europe rn and pretty late in the states.
A way to dodge those side-effects could be to make it so formally no actions actually happened during the controversial timeframe and we just lock in the gamestate to the final result. Overall looks pretty good imo. >If there are any lingering bugs you’re aware of that would perpetuate our shiny problems, please share them so that we can get those fixed If there is a bounty for showing them or something, I'm guessing people will be more inclined to show them. I believe this is a problem that all fix endeavors will have though, people will just prefer to be silent about potential flaws which they believe they could scam in the future. I don't know a good solution but I'm guessing a bounty (which is pretty much a bribe) could be alright. On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > Having caught up - y’all are exhaustingly fast, you know that? - I think > it’s time to start drafting the fixes in earnest. > > Some basic principles: > > 1. The actions undertaken so far were undertaken in broadly good faith > with respect to the transactional nature of the current economic rules, and > performed with the mistaken understanding that several key rules made > actions POSSIBLE instead of making them PERMISSIBLE. These actions should > not be invalidated over a simple rule defect, even where those actions were > clearly scams in other ways. (Quazie, I’m trying to let you and CuddleBeam > keep your ill-gotten stamp winnings.) > > 2. Whatever solution we apply to permit those actions must also protect > their side effects. It does Agora no good to enforce our intended > understanding of shinies, stamps, and the floating value if we still have > to throw away several proposals, both passed and in flight, and several > CFJs. > > 3. The solution should be robust against additional actions performed in > the potentially substantial time between its initial submission as a > proposal, and its final enactment. > > If you disagree with these, or feel they’re insufficient, please, speak up > - now is a critical time for you to get your feedback in. > > The second principle strongly implies that we need to, in some way, > re-resolve each action, as if the rules were the corrected rules at that > time. The alternative is to gather up the total result, and ratify it by > proposal, but i fear that we may not fully understand what side effects > need ratification. > > With that in mind, here are the things I believe need to happen: > > 1. The proposals fixing the stamps, welcome package, and floating value > rules need to pass. If there are any lingering bugs you’re aware of that > would perpetuate our shiny problems, please share them so that we can get > those fixed, too. > > 2. I need to draft a proposal that, somehow, ratifies the results of all > shiny-related and stamp-related actions since July 30th, when nichdel > attempted to create the first stamp. This proposal also needs a catch-all > clause to cause it to ratify shiny actions taken after this proposal is > submitted but before it passes, or we need a gentleagorans’ agreement not > to do anything with shinies or stamps for the duration. > > What am I missing? > > -o > >
