On 7/21/2019 1:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 8:59 AM James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>> CoE: The Proposal Pool is not empty. I think it still contains my
>> "Police Power" proposal.
>
>
> Rejected. It is the opinion of the Office of the Promotor that an
> error in a non-substantive aspect of a proposal doesn’t invalidate
> that proposal, and merely requires that it be corrected.
It was wrong in one of the essential parameters, right?
I think this is really contradictory to your stance on creating
proposals in the first place - you're stating that a Proposer has
to get it right (e.g. for AI) or the whole thing fails. But the
Promotor, who is doing an official job that actually performs the
duty is allowed to get it wrong, and it still succeeds? Awfully
convenient on the Promotor but not good for accurate voting.
That seems 100% backwards in my mind but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I vote based on essential parameters (AI in particular but the
rules include all of them). If you claim to distribute a
proposal with the wrong essential parameters, you're claiming
that you distributed a proposal that doesn't actually exist.
-G.
