> 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: > >>> > >>> 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. > >>> > >> 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?
I'm struggling with the appropriate solution. I definitely think that it's bad to have to re-start the voting 2 days after it begins and require everyone to re-cast their votes, especially for something like a wrong co-author. At the same time, both AI and Author (and the text obviously) are relevant to evaluating the proposals when voting. One issue is that AI, text, author, and co-author are all "essential parameters" so have to be treated as legally identical at the distribution stage, so if we make a precedent for co-author it would apply to the proposal's text as well. And clearly publishing the wrong text shouldn't work, right? Maybe a hybrid solution - though it would need to be implemented, maybe something like "the Promotor CAN correct a parameter within 4 days of the distribution, but after the decision needs to be re-started"? But there should be different standards to something like that: an incorrect Text should always be invalid, Author and AI within 4 days is fine, co-authors eh who cares (but there should be a mechanism for fixing that for the eventual record). Jason Cobb 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. Well we have a mechanism that is basically the same as self-ratification (in principle) in R107 with the "lack identified within one week" clause. We could update this language to make use of self-ratification but it doesn't really change the issue of what missing/wrong sub-parts should invalidate the decision. I think "substantive aspect" is too ill-defined on its own - and remember this is providing information for informed voting. The author doesn't affect the proposal's operation so isn't a substantive aspect 99% of the time, but it absolutely has an effect when I come to think of how to vote. -G.
