Agreed. At the time, I thought that a proposal without an AI was invalid, but I understand that was wrong now. This seems like the most grammatically clear one nevertheless. I advise TRUE on the CFJ.
On October 29, 2025 12:08:17 PM PDT, Cosmo via agora-discussion <[email protected]> wrote: >> (b) the title >> being "(AI=1.0)" and no AI being specified that attempt fails to meet >> the "by announcement standard"? >> >Arguments as to why this interpretation does create a valid proposal: >Rule 2350 states that stating an AI is optional, and Rule 1950 gives >proposals a default AI of 1, if one isn't specified. > >Evidence: >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Rule 1950/39 (Power=3) >Decisions with Adoption Indices > > Adoption index (AI) is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran > decisions and proposals, secured at power 2. For decisions, the > possible values are "none" (default) or integral multiples of 0.1 > from 1.0 to 9.9. For proposals, the possible values are integral > multiples of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9 (default 1.0). > > The adoption index of a referendum CANNOT be set or changed to > "none" or to a value less than that of its associated proposal. If > a referendum ever has an adoption index of "none" or an adoption > index less than that of its associated proposal, it is immediately > set to the adoption index of the associated proposal. > > Adoption index is an essential parameter of an Agoran decision if > that decision has an adoption index. > > For any Agoran decision with a non-"none" adoption index, the > voting method is AI-majority. > >>
