Would it make sense to make the distribution of a proposal
self-ratifying? That would mean the normal CoE rules would apply,
although it would probably need some extra protection where a
substantive aspect (R2140) being wrong invalidates the distribution.
Jason Cobb
On 7/22/19 1:21 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:15 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
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.
You may have a point. It isn’t actually significantly easier for me to
correct the distribution than redistribute it; my theory has historically
been that for some errors, such as errors in coauthor, the Agoran public
would find me doing that much more annoying than useful. That said, my
reasoning is entirely based on convenience for the public, rather than the
interests of the game. So, IMO, if this doesn’t work, it probably makes
sense to make it so it does work. What are your thoughts on the best way to
resolve the situation?
-Aris
Bleh. I typoed pretty bad there. Instead of “the interests of the game”,
read “a reading of the rules”.
-Aris
