On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 3:16 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/20/23 17:48, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I believe I won the rice game on 12 June - not sure though. Here are
> > my notes, wouldn't be at all surprised if I missed something critical.
> >
> > ---------------------------
> > 5-22 harvested plan
> > Created: snail
> > Up: {4st, beokirby, blob, inalienableWright, nix, snail, Yachay},
> > Down: {Aspen, ais523, cuddlybanana, G., Janet, juan, Murphy}
> > Signatures: snail, Yachay, 4st, beokirby
> >
> > After 5-22 harvest
> > 4st 1
> > beokirby 1
> > blob 1
> > iWright* 1
> > nix 1
> > snail 1
> > Yachay 1
> >
> > ---------------------------
> > 5-29 harvested plan
> > Created: 2023-05-22 by juan
> > Up: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
> > Down: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
> > Signatures: ais523, juan, G., Janet
> >
> > After 5-29 harvest
> > Aspen 1
> > G. 1
> > Janet 1
> > Murphy 1
> > ais523 1
> > cuddlybanana 1
> > Juan 1
> >
> > ---------------------------
> > Note: ais523 had 1 rice at the time of Proposal 8989's alleged adoption
> > (just before the 6-05 plans were harvested). So that proposal was
> > resolved incorrectly and the victory condition remains 2 rice.
> >
> > Proposal 8988 was adopted, but I'm assuming that plans and signatures
> > were continuous as the definitions didn't change over-much, and the
> > winning plan below was signed in a way (by announcement/announced
> > consent) that works under both rule versions. This, of course, is
> > arguable.
> > ---------------------------
> > 6-05 harvested plan
> > Created: 2023-06-04 by 4st
> > Up: {G.}
> > Down: {All active players with 1 or more rice at the time of creation,
> > except 4st}
> > Signatures: G., 4st
> > (note: G is on both up and down lists)
> >
> > After 6-05 harvest
> > G. 1
> >
> > ---------------------------
> > 6-12 harvested plan
> > Created: 2023-06-05 by Beokirby
> > Up: {Beokirby, Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
> > Down: {}
> > Signatures: beokirby, juan
> >
> > After 6-12 harvest
> > Beokirby 1
> > Aspen 1
> > G. 2
> > Janet 1
> > Murphy 1
> > ais523 1
> > cuddlybanana 1
> > juan 1
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > I did not track after this, due to not knowing if things were reset on 6-12
>
>
> This doesn't appear to account for the two proposals that might have
> affected this (or maybe they weren't in the relevant time period)?
>
> I have no idea if disarmament passed, and I really don't have the energy
> to untangle how the CFJs affected this myself.
I listed my take on the two proposals in the middle of that text above
(in the appropriate time sequence). Here it is again:
> > Proposal 8988 was adopted, but I'm assuming that plans and signatures
> > were continuous as the definitions didn't change over-much, and the
> > winning plan below was signed in a way (by announcement/announced
> > consent) that works under both rule versions. This, of course, is
> > arguable.
and
> > Note: ais523 had 1 rice at the time of Proposal 8989's alleged adoption
> > (just before the 6-05 plans were harvested). So that proposal was
> > resolved incorrectly and the victory condition remains 2 rice.
If either of these assumptions is incorrect, of course recalculations
would be needed.
To resolve this, if you don't have the energy, I'll deputize to
resolve 8989 myself (I think the resolution is 14 days overdue, of
course up to now that's been due to uncertainty).
-G.
