On 4/18/23 15:26, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 4/18/23 13:52, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 4/18/23 11:38, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> {
>>> Title: An Experiment in Fiscal Responsibility
>>> AI: 1.5
>>> Author: nix
>>> Co-Authors: Janet, 4st, G.
>>>
>>> Retitle R2656 to "Radiance and the Radiologist".
>>>
>>> Amend R2656 by replacing "tracked by the Herald" with "tracked by the
>>> Radiologist".
>>>
>>> Re-enact rule 1957 at Power=1 with the title "Budgets" and the following
>>> text:
>>>
>>> A Budget Switch is a switch defined as such by the Rules.
>>>
>>> A Proposed Budget is a document purporting to be such and listing
>>> clear and unambiguous proposed values for each Budget Switch
>>> tracked by a given office. During the nomination period of an
>>> election for an office, if that office trackes any Budget
>>> Switches, each candidate SHOULD publish a Proposed Budget.
>> "clearly labeled as a Proposed Budget"
> Changed to "clearly labeled as such" in the next version.
This also needs to say "each instance of each Budget Switch", sorry.
>
>>
>>> When an election is resolved with a winner, all Budget Switches
>>> tracked by that office are flipped to the corresponding value in
>>> the Proposed Budget the winner submitted during the nomination
>>> period, if e did so. Otherwise, they remain at their current
>>> values.
>> Do you want to handle the case of the winner publishing multiple such
>> budgets?
> Yes, good point. I'll make it just be the last thing they publish (with
> a minimum of 1 day to prevent scams) during nomination period.
>
>>
>>> A player CAN flip a Budget Switch without objection; an officer
>>> required to track a particular Budget Switch CAN flip it without
>>> three objections, or with Agoran Consent.
>> "flip a specified Budget Switch to a specified valid value without
>> object" >:(
Fair enough on ignoring that lol. Though on further review this at least
needs to say "instance of a Budget Switch".
>>
>>
>>> Amend R2657 to read in full:
>>>
>>> For each Radiance Condition, there is a corresponding non-negative
>>> integer budget switch, with a default value of 0, tracked by the
>>> Radiologist in eir weekly report.
>> "singleton switch"
>>
>>
>>> Each time a player fulfills a radiance condition, e CAN once,
>>> within 14 days, by announcement (specifying any indicated info)
>>> gain X radiance, where X is that radiance condition's budget
>>> switch's value.
>> "X is Agora's value for that radiance condition's budget switch".
> Is there something ineffective about mine? I'm not sure how singleton is
> more clear.
As I read the current version, this says there is a type of budget
switch for each radiance condition without specifying which entities
have instances of that switch, rather than an instance of a switch for
each radiance condition. "Singleton" makes it clear. I guess it could
also say "[Reward amount] is a non-negative integer budget switch owned
by radiance conditions ...".
>
>>
>>> Below is the complete list of radiance conditions:
>>>
>>> * Being the author of a proposal that takes effect, at the
>>> instant it finishes taking effect (must specify proposal
>>> number).
>>>
>>> * Being a coauthor of a proposal that takes effect, at the
>>> instant it finishes taking effect (must specify proposal
>>> number).
>>>
>>> * Having an Agoran Birthday.
>> "Having an Agoran Birthday, at the instant that Birthday begins".
> Why does this need to be changed from how it has been already?
>
I just realized it wasn't consistent with the proposal ones ("Having an
Agora Birthday" happens continuously rather than instantaneously).
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
