Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora): What would count as "duly
harassment"?
Rule 2679 (Restrictions on Participation): Either change the definition
of "unwelcome" to "if and only if", or change the securing of
"designations of unwelcomeness" to "other designations". Also, maybe be
more explicit here and/or Rule 2678 (Expectations of Participation) that
being unwelcome is "not in line with Agora's rules".
Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?): We should probably amend it to confirm that
it also covers passive uses, e.g. a player who interpreted the rules as
proscribing an unregulated action would thereby violate the SHALL NOT in
Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions).
Rule 1728 (Tabled Actions): "e is authorized to perform its action due
to holding a rule-defined position" (etc.) should probably either
specifically check who held it when the action was tabled - rather than
potentially requiring someone to check whether e ever held that position
over the entire history of Agora - or not care at all whether the person
who tabled it previously held it. Maybe e expected to hold it later, or
maybe e just wanted to get the ball rolling and nudge the holder.
Rule 2518 (Determinacy): If we enacted a rule "Humidity is a singleton
number switch that, once the Forecastor announces a Prediction, is
thereafter flipped to (1 - its current value) at the start of each day",
would that count as "alternat[ing] indefinitely between values"; in
particular, would it trigger the anti-indeterminate guard clause in Rule
2162 (Switches)?
Rule 1586 (Definition and Continuity of Entities): "A rule, contract, or
regulation ... when the rule first came to include ..." should mention
contracts and regulations again in the second clause, or define a term
for the phrase and then use that term in both clauses. Speaking of, how
is precedence between two non-rule entities within this set resolved?
Regulation vs regulation, Rule 2493 (Regulations) says that a regulation
"has only the effect that rule explicitly gives it", so such a conflict
would create a conflict between the authorizing rules. Contract vs
contract, Rule 1742 (Contracts) requires you to obey them all (and if
they're contradictory, then tough), and limits CANs to a few things that
shouldn't cause any overlap issues.
Rule 2162 (Switches): Annotate that "To become X", where the value X
corresponds to another entity, does not cause the first entity to become
the same entity as the second.
Rule 2350 (Proposals): "A list of one or more co-authors (none of which
is the author)". Also, is the omission of co-authors from "cannot be
changed" intentional? (It may be impossible anyway if the rules don't
specify a method.) Probably should reuse "essential parameters" from
Rule 1607 (Distribution); Rule 2141 (Role and Attribute of Rules)
instead uses "substantive aspects", but this is probably too generic a
phrase for a generic definition to be useful. Also, add this: "In
general, proposals in the Pool are distributed by the Promotor (removing
them from the Pool and creating an Agoran decision), as described by
other rules." Until then, the Rulekeepor can add unofficial historical
annotations, but only to the FLR, per Rule 1681 (The Logical Rulesets).
(And add more "in general ... as described elsewhere" clauses, e.g. "a
higher Adoption Index is required to affect higher-Power rules, but also
requires stronger support from voters".)
Rule 2606 (Proposal Classes): "Untracked" should be dialed down to e.g.
"tracked by the Promotor, but only for <some reasonable subset of
proposals>", and similar for other untracked switches. Then Rule 2162
(Switches) should be changed from "other instances are at their default
value" to "other tracked instances".
Rule 217 (Interpreting the Rules): Probably should add "reasonable
expectation of <something>" to (2), otherwise it either goes too far
(someone could spam CFJs "I should not be punished for X") or not far
enough (we could theoretically enact "All CFJs submitted by Alice are
dismissed one second later", as opposed to something reasonable like
"All CFJs after the submitter's fifth per week", noting that X can be
e.g. "any of this long list of things").
Rule 105 (Rule Changes): Reenacting a rule should explicitly state that
it becomes a rule again.
Rule 2486 (The Royal Parade): Still needs a name updated.
Rule 879 (Quorum): What about moving this to a singleton switch? The
Assessor could track it (giving em a report on top of eir non-report
duties), and update it up to once per week based on the previous week's
referenda (if any).
Rule 2127 (Conditional Votes): Instant runoff could use an example, e.g.
"Alice, ([Bob, Charlie] if <X> is true, [David] otherwise), Egbert".
Rule 2168 (Extending the Voting Period): "...except if it is already at
least that long and/or this has already happened for the decision in
question."
Rule 2630 (The Administrative State): 2) seems redundant with promises.
Rule 2154 (Election Procedure): While Rule 2651 (The Election Cycle)
allows the ADoP to initiate eir own election ("e is the holder of that
office"), and Rule 2154 allows any player to resolve an uncontested
election, it's possible that at least one contested ADoP election was
improperly but uncontroversially resolved by the ADoP and then ratified
into validity. Suggestion: "if the office is the ADoP and the election
was initiated by the Assessor, the Assessor"; let the ADoP resolve eir
own office's election, but maybe make it impossible or illegal to break
ties in eir own favor. (And if e simply refuses to resolve the election,
then someone can deputise to do so.)
Rule 2573 (Impeachment): Should probably explicitly state that the
office becomes vacant. Also partly overlaps with Rule 1006 (Offices)
allowing vacating an office without 2 objections, presumably intended
for situations like "current holder hasn't been heard from in a while".
Rule 2160 (Deputisation): Needs to be flattened out.
A player acting as emself (the deputy) CAN perform an action
ordinarily reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office if all
of the following are true:
1) The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of
holding that office, to perform the action. (This requirement is
fulfilled by the deputy performing the action.)
2) It would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
other than by deputisation, if e held the office.
3) The deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is
doing so by deputisation or by temporary deputisation.
4) The deputy has not held the office in the past 7 days.
(If the office is vacant, then the remaining items need not be true.)
5) A time limit by which the rules require the action to be
performed has expired.
6) The office's holder has not changed in the past 7 days.
7) Any of the following are true:
a) The deputy announced between 2 and 14 days earlier that
e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the
particular action.
b) The time limit expired between 14 and 28 days ago.
c) The time limit expired more than 28 days ago, and the
deputisation is temporary.
When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the
holder of that office, unless the deputisation is temporary, and/or the
action being performed would already install someone into that office.
Rule 2138 (The Associate Director of Personnel): How long have we been
collectively ignoring items 4 and 5? The database should have enough
info to automate the reporting, but it would be easier to just cut each
one down to "the date of the last time that report was published".
Rule 2472 (Office Incompatibilities): Couple of implicit things here
that could stand to be more explicit. "Installed" only covers winning an
election, and Demanding Resignation only measures whether the player is
Overpowered when the with-Notice action is completed (not when the
advance notice is announced).
Rule 2632 (Complexity): "eir voting strength for referenda on ordinary
proposals is increased..." Similar for Rule 2675 (Dream of Wandering).
Rule 1551 (Ratification): The paragraph on retroactive changes is just
tacked onto the beginning without explanation. Either split it out, or
add "The more common approach is to simulate retroactive changes by
changing the current gamestate to what it would be now if past events
had gone differently."
Rule 2202 (Ratification Without Objection): "a document that (prior to
ratification) contained..."
Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification): "attestation" could use an example, e.g.
"the rules may define a statement of 'X happens based on Y' as being a
self-ratifying attestation that Y exists as described/implied".
Rule 2555 (Blots): "Each player CAN, once per week, expunge..."
Rule 2478 (Justice):
* "Infracter" is an awkward word. ("Offender"? "Transgressor"?)
* "The Investigator for an infraction is the Referee (unless the Referee
is the infracter, in which case it is the Arbitor)."
* "Base" is also a confusing word, and so is "Class" unless you're
accustomed to it. ("Minimum Penalty" and "Maximum Penalty", with "Base"
and "Class" retained as synonyms?)
* "The Investigator of a noted, unforgiven infraction" should be moved
to the end of the following paragraph ("A player CAN, by announcement,
'note'...")
* What if the circumstances are unclear? If it's unclear whether the
infraction was committed at all, then the Investigator can announce "If
this infraction was committed, then I specify N blots",
but that means the Referee's report has to track the conditional for a
while. What if it's clear that the infraction was committed, but other
circumstances are unclear,
and they affect how strongly it ought to be penalized? We could go
back to the old criminal-case model (where the judge ruled on both "was
it committed" and "if so, what do we
do about it"), or alternatively we could state "The Investigator
should <announce a conditional action or whatever>".
Rule 2531 (Defendant's Rights): "automatically" anything is a matter of
concern. Maybe tie it to a CFJ on the subject, at least an "In general"
informal description.
Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement): I think "interested players" was once
scammable when "interested" was defined by the rules, rather than
defaulting to its ordinary-language meaning. ("I'm uninterested, but I'm
assigning all cases to myself anyway. All you interested players have
equal opportunities, namely none."). Of course, you'd risk impeachment
in either situation.
Rule 911 (Motions and Moots): "The judge of that CFJ can once self-file
a Motion..."
Rule 2246 (Submitting a CFJ to the Referee): Replace "for that case"
with "specific to that case", to make it clear that e.g. the Arbitor
selecting an annual Most Significant CFJ is not included.
Rule 2216 (Assets): What does it mean for the recordkeepor of an asset
class to be "bound by" its backing document?
Economics section: "This section only describes the core mechanics" is
iffy when it includes the rules for Stamps and Dreams. "This section
mainly just describes"?
Rule 2645 (The Stones): Create a Mail Stone (steals stamps) and a Soap
Stone (removes Blots).
Rule 2654 (The Device), Rule 2655 (The Mad Engineer): "maintaining the
Device rule", "The juice is a singleton switch", then change other uses
of "the device" (not clearly intended in one of these senses) to "a
device". (What to do with bullet points in Rule 2655 that mention "the
device"?)
Rule 2673 (Motivating Horses): "The Horsened SHALL motivate the horses
each week, unless they have already been motivated that week."
Rule 2674 (Horse Powers): "Rubert's power: ... bet 1, 2, or 3 dollaries
on a specified horse, and then prod it 3 times, by paying a fee of 1, 2,
or 3 dollaries respectively. When a horse is prodded, if it has the
lowest race position or is tied for the lowest race position, then its
race position is increased by 1."
Awards section: "bragging points" -> "bragging-rights awards", to avoid
confusion with Score.
Rule 649 (Patent Titles): The Herald can create an administrative
regulation stating "The Herald CAN award Patent Titles by announcement",
though e risks impeachment.
