If a conversation is primarly bottom-posted, please at least keep it bottom-posted. Doing it in both directions is the worst of both worlds. I'll reply to the substance separately.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:29 AM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
