On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:48 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2020-06-03 17:00, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-discussion wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2020, at 18:48, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Parties to this contract should signal their own messages. They > >> should also, if a message that should be signaled lacks signaling, > >> reply to that message, signaling their own message and stating that > >> the quoted message contains actions that should be signaled. > > I’m not sure how I feel about this clause. I apologize for not raising this > > at an earlier draft, but I wonder whether this will actually help or just > > serve to make the mailing list busier. I think if it becomes near > > universal, this will be good because the collective impact will be > > minimally busying and will allow everyone to read fewer messages if they > > don’t want to; otherwise, I think it will just crowd the mailing list. > > I'm sorry, I don't know if I follow this logic here. Which section do > you have qualms about? The "signaling their own messages" or the > "signaling for other's messages" part?
Sorry, this is about the "signaling for other's messages" part. > > >> A list of actions that should be so signaled and the appropriate > >> signals is included below, sorted by which office they are most > >> pertinent to the duties of. If the specified action signal is already > >> included in the subject of the message, players should signal the > >> office instead. > > I’m confused by this. This seems to imply that both the action and the > > office should be signaled. > > The intention was that if the subject line is "Quangor Election", > players don't need to say something redundant like "[Election] Quangor > Election" because that would be redundant; instead they would say > "[Attn: ADoP] Quangor Election". I would find this more intuitive, but I > am open to changing it a bit. Okay, that wasn't clear to me. Maybe change it to: "If the specified action signal is otherwise included in the subject of the message, players should signal the office instead." This makes it clear that it's about inclusion for reasons other than the contract. > > > Maybe also include something for contracts? > > Apart from what's already in the Notary section? I meant for internal contract operations, such as messages to be processed by the President of the Dragon or the Exchange Master. > > >> * Notary > >> * Creation and destruction of pledges: [Pledge] > >> * Creation and destruction of contracts: [Contract] > >> * Any action defined or permitted by a contract: either that > >> contract's full name or an easily identifiable part of that > >> contract's name that cannot be confused with that of another > >> existing contract. > >> 2. Respecting Drafts: the act of not performing actions that would cause > >> an officer to be required to update already-published drafts. > > > > What about things like the Promotor’s report where back-dating is > > permissible? It seems that this would have little force in that regard. > > Ironically, the Promotor's report was the inspiration to start this, > before Aris mentioned that e could backdate eir reports. I'm open to > suggestions on this point. It could just say "except when back-dating is > permissible" I guess. I was actually saying this with the opposite intent. As I read it now, the Promotor's ability to back-date means that e is never required to update an already-published draft. > > >> Parties to this contract should respect drafts except when urgent > >> action is required and when the rules require them to take said > >> actions. > > > > I think this should be an or not an and. > > Took me a bit to parse this sentence, but I agree that it would be helpful. Sorry, I should have used quotation marks. I just think that as it reads now, both conditions are required to be fulfilled.
