For the sake of clarity, it is my interpretation of the relevant rules that the Promotor is required to distribute all proposals once each week, but not necessarily to distribute _all_ proposals in a given week. I did so last week, with the ones I know about, and will do it again this week. Either a green card or a yellow card would seem reasonable under the circumstances.
-Aris On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > If by "the report" you mean the one I just I did, I avoided that > because I'm preparing the next report and its easier for people to > vote when everything is in one place. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:00 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I would submit, as arguments, that the Promotor was reminded and had the >> opportunity to avoid the violation by distributing the proposal at the time >> of the report. >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:59 Aris Merchant, >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Very true. I plead guilty and request the mercy of the Referee for >>> this error, noting that it was an inadvertent mistake. >>> >>> -Aris >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > I Point a Finger at Aris, alleging that e failed to distribute the >>> > proposal >>> > identified below as pp3 last week, thereby failing to distribute all >>> > pending >>> > proposals. >>> > >>> > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017, 17:38 Aris Merchant, >>> > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> This following is a revision to the proposal pool from my last report. >>> >> >>> >> The proposal pool contains the following proposals: >>> >> >>> >> ID Author(s) AI Title >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >> pp1 nichdel 3.0 Slower Promotion >>> >> pp2 nichdel 1.0 Guaranteed Stampage >>> >> pp3* Alexis 3.0 Clarity Act >>> >> pp4* Gaelan 1.0 Another Economy Fix Attempt >>> >> >>> >> Legend: <ID>* : Proposal is pending. >>> >> >>> >> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. >>> >> >>> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >>> >> ID: pp1 >>> >> Title: Slower Promotion >>> >> Adoption index: 3.0 >>> >> Author: nichdel >>> >> Co-authors: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Amend R1607 (Distribution) by replacing: >>> >> >>> >> In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir weekly >>> >> duties, >>> >> distribute all pending proposals. >>> >> >>> >> with >>> >> >>> >> In a given Agoran week, as part of eir weekly duties, the Promotor >>> >> SHALL: >>> >> >>> >> * distribute all pending proposals if there are no unresolved >>> >> Agoran >>> >> decisions to adopt a proposal. >>> >> >>> >> * list all unresolved Agoran decisions to adopt a proposal. The >>> >> Promotor >>> >> MAY still distribute all pending proposals. >>> >> >>> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >>> >> ID: pp2 >>> >> Title: Guaranteed Stampage >>> >> Adoption index: 1.0 >>> >> Author: nichdel >>> >> Co-authors: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Amend 2499 "Welcome Packages" to read in full: >>> >> >>> >> If a player has not received one since e most recently became a >>> >> player, any player CAN, by announcement, cause em to receive a >>> >> Welcome package. When a player receives a Welcome Package: >>> >> >>> >> * Agora transfers em 1/10th the FV in shinies and >>> >> >>> >> * a Stamp, with Agora as the Creater, is created in eir >>> >> possession. >>> >> >>> >> Amend R2498 to be titled "Stamps" and to read in full: >>> >> >>> >> Stamps are an asset. The Secretary is the recordkeepor of Stamps. >>> >> >>> >> Each Stamp has an associated Creater which SHOULD be noted whenever >>> >> the >>> >> Stamp >>> >> is mentioned and MUST be noted whenever the Stamp is transfered. >>> >> Stamps >>> >> with >>> >> the same creater are fungible. >>> >> >>> >> Once per month a player CAN, by announcement, create a Stamp with >>> >> themselves >>> >> as the Creater by transferring the Stamp Value, in shinies, to Agora. >>> >> >>> >> If Agora owns at least as many Shinies as the current Stamp Value, a >>> >> player >>> >> CAN, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns to cause Agora to >>> >> transfer >>> >> the >>> >> Stamp Value, in shinies, to emself. >>> >> >>> >> Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Stamp Wins" with the following text: >>> >> >>> >> If a player owns 10 stamps with different Creaters, none of which >>> >> have >>> >> Agora >>> >> as its Creater, e CAN win by announcement. Doing so destroys the >>> >> specified >>> >> stamps. >>> >> >>> >> Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Basic Stamp Income" with the following >>> >> text: >>> >> >>> >> When the Secretary publishes the first Weekly Report of an Agoran >>> >> Month, >>> >> e >>> >> CAN and SHALL, by announcement, create Stamps with Agora as the >>> >> Creater >>> >> and >>> >> transfer them to any player who has no stamps and less than the Stamp >>> >> Value >>> >> in shinies at the time of publication. >>> >> >>> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >>> >> ID: pp3 >>> >> Title: Clarity Act >>> >> Adoption index: 3.0 >>> >> Author: Alexis >>> >> Co-authors: >>> >> >>> >> Text in square brackets is not a part of this proposal's substance and >>> >> is ignored when it takes effect. >>> >> >>> >> Enact a new power 3 rule entitled Voting Methods, reading as follows: >>> >> Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which must be >>> >> AI-majority, instant runoff, or first-past-the-post. The voting >>> >> method is that specified by the authorizing authority, or >>> >> first-past-the-post by default. >>> >> >>> >> Each Agoran decision has a set of valid options (the choices that >>> >> the voters are being asked to select from) and valid votes (the >>> >> ways in which the voters can express their opinion or lack >>> >> thereof. >>> >> For AI-majority decisions, the valid options are FOR and AGAINST; >>> >> for other decisions, the valid options are defined by other >>> >> rules. >>> >> >>> >> The valid votes on an Agoran decision are: >>> >> 1. PRESENT; >>> >> 2. The valid conditional votes, as defined by rules of power at >>> >> least that of this rule; and >>> >> 3. For an instant runoff decision, the ordered lists of entities. >>> >> 4. For any other decision, the valid options. >>> >> >>> >> [This splits off the portion of 955 that isn't actually related to >>> >> resolution. The definition of instant runoff is changed to evaluate >>> >> validity of options at the end of the voting period, and avoid >>> >> retroactively invalidating votes if an option drops out.] >>> >> >>> >> Amend Rule 955 by replacing the second paragraph and numbered list with >>> >> the following and by deleting the second bullet in the unnumbered list. >>> >> 1. For an AI-majority decision, let F be the total strength of >>> >> all >>> >> valid ballots cast FOR a decision, A be the same for AGAINST, >>> >> and AI be the adoption index of the decision. The outcome is >>> >> ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A > 1 (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise >>> >> REJECTED. >>> >> >>> >> 2. For an instant runoff decision, the outcome is whichever >>> >> option >>> >> wins according to the standard definition of instant runoff. >>> >> For this purpose, a ballot of strength N is treated as if it >>> >> were N distinct ballots expressing the same preferences. In >>> >> case multiple valid options tie for the lowest number of votes >>> >> at any stage, the vote collector CAN and must, in the >>> >> announcement of the decision's resolution, select one such >>> >> option to eliminate; if, for M > 1, all eir possible choices >>> >> in >>> >> the next M stages would result in the same set of options >>> >> being >>> >> eliminated, e need not specify the order of elimination. If an >>> >> entity that is part of a valid vote is not a valid option at >>> >> the end of the voting period, or disqualified by the rule >>> >> providing for the decision, then that entity is eliminated >>> >> prior to the first round of counting. >>> >> >>> >> 3. For a first-past-the-post decision, the outcome is whichever >>> >> option received the highest total strength of valid ballots. >>> >> In >>> >> case of a tie, the vote collector CAN and must, in the >>> >> announcement of the decision's resolution, select one of the >>> >> leaders as the outcome. >>> >> >>> >> [No change here, except for removing the valid votes, and clearly >>> >> specifying what happens to options that are no longer valid at the end >>> >> of the voting period.] >>> >> >>> >> If the text "The rule providing for an Agoran Decision by instant >>> >> runoff >>> >> may disqualify one or more options; in such a case, they are eliminated >>> >> prior to beginning the first stage of the vote count." appears in Rule >>> >> 955, delete it. >>> >> >>> >> [Coordinating amendment to the Election Procedure proposal. H. >>> >> Assessor, >>> >> please resolve that one first.] >>> >> >>> >> Amend Rule 2127 to read as follows: >>> >> A conditional vote on an Agoran decision is a vote which >>> >> indicates >>> >> a vote based on some condition(s). A conditional vote is >>> >> evaluated >>> >> at the end of the voting period and, rules to the contrary >>> >> notwithstanding, is clearly specified if and only if the value of >>> >> the condition(s) is/are determinate at the end of the voting >>> >> period. If the conditional is clearly specified, and evaluates to >>> >> a valid vote, it is counted as that vote; otherwise, it is >>> >> counted >>> >> as PRESENT. >>> >> >>> >> Any vote which is clearly expressed as a conditional, e.g. "FOR >>> >> if >>> >> <X> is true, AGAINST otherwise", is a valid conditional vote that >>> >> evaluates as specified. >>> >> >>> >> A vote endorsing another person is equivalent to a conditional >>> >> vote evaluating to the vote specified in that person's valid >>> >> ballot on the decision, if any. >>> >> >>> >> For an instant runoff decision, a vote consisting of a list, one >>> >> or more entries of which are valid conditional votes, and the >>> >> remaining entries of which are valid options, is a valid >>> >> conditional vote. Such a vote is evaluated by evaluating each >>> >> conditional entry to a list of votes (or an empty list, if it >>> >> evaluates to PRESENT either directly or indirectly), and then >>> >> concatenating those lists with the specified valid options in the >>> >> order they occurred in the original vote. >>> >> >>> >> [New conditional vote rule clearly specifies what conditional votes are >>> >> valid, as well as providing for evaluation of conditional lists in >>> >> instant runoff in the sensible way.] >>> >> >>> >> Amend Rule 2438 by replacing the paragraph describing Orange >>> >> Ribbons with: >>> >> >>> >> Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on >>> >> which no valid ballots were AGAINST (after evaluating >>> >> conditionals), its proposer earns an Orange Ribbon. >>> >> >>> >> Award G. a Transparent Ribbon. >>> >> >>> >> [I accept that it's fair that this may not actually be a problem, >>> >> but clarifying it and converging gamestate does not hurt.] >>> >> >>> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >>> >> ID: pp4 >>> >> Title: Another Economy Fix Attempt >>> >> Adoption index: 1.0 >>> >> Author: Gaelan >>> >> Co-authors: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Create a power-1 rule titled "Keep it up" with the following text: >>> >> === >>> >> If an action defined entirely by the rules that would otherwise be >>> >> POSSIBLE for a player to perform is IMPOSSIBLE due to Agora having a >>> >> low shiny balance, that player may win the game with 2 Days Notice. >>> >> Upon doing so, half of all player's shiny balances (rounded down) are >>> >> transferred to Agora. >>> >> === >>> >> >>> >> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
