On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 13:26, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Alexis wrote: > > omd's fix proposal would make it so that the amount of the award is > > platonic, given when the player invokes the triggering phrase > > (presumably in response to our 21 different attempts to use the rule > > with different numbers). It would then be easy for the Tailor to give > > the appropriate awards by searching for instances of the triggering > > action. > > Yes, I think we agree on this. My issue with omd's fix is that it makes > it incumbent on the _Treasuror_, rather than the Tailor (as in my proto) > or the player (as it is currently), to calculate the correct amount for > the glitter reward. > > > Huh. I'm not sure of the incident you're referring to as Assessor, but > > historically the Assessor's primary prerogatives have been to resolve > > proposals out-of-order and to act first after resolution (including > > possibly being the only player able to act in a window of opportunity > > between two resolutions). I'm pretty sure Agora has accepted the > > Assessor doing this in the past. > > Yes, the objection to my behaviour was not about my illicit gains > themselves, but rather that, in the course of acquiring them, I > inadvertently nullified the effect of someone else's proposal. Twice. > (E was very nice about it, but several people took a far dimmer view.) > > -twg > These shenanigans happened a fair bit more when the quorum had been changed to a floating quorum based on the number of voters recently, but hadn't yet been moved to the start of the voting period fixing the quorum. The result was that only the first proposal in a batch would ever fail quorum, and if memory serves the Assessor occasionally picked the one e liked least rather than just the first numerically. Alexis
