On 5/7/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Never used within the range of the current mailing list archives (back
to 2002-11-03). On 2002-11-26 you proposed its repeal, on the basis
that it hadn't been used in recent memory. It was eventually repealed
on 2005-05-15.
On 18 July 2001, Murphy
Ed Murphy wrote:
>What about only charging for proposals with AI < 2?
That's conceptually interesting. It fits in with my general plan of
separating undemocratic Ordinary proposals from a purer democratic system.
The charging would still constitute an artificial scarcity, of course,
but restricte
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>On May 7, 2007, at 1:30 PM, Zefram wrote:
>>Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource.
>
>No, but proposal entry and distribution is.
Eh? What do you mean by "proposal entry"? I don't see any scarcity
around here.
-zefram
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>Since I started playing, I don't remember the Guillotine having been
>used. When was it last used?
Never used within the range of the current mailing list archives (back
to 2002-11-03). On 2002-11-26 you proposed its repeal, on the basis
that it hadn't been used in rec
On May 7, 2007, at 4:45 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed,
Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to
creating
artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in
that
wa
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed,
Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to creating
artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in that
way, but it sounds like quite a lot of extra work f
On May 7, 2007, at 1:30 PM, Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed,
Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource.
No, but proposal entry and distribution is.
(Why do I think I just got another entry in Maud's rotating quotes
file
On May 7, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Zefram wrote:
Finally, the clause "right to have it voted on" is troubling. Is
it "voted on" if a veto or guillotine ends the voting period?
With the present Speaker's Veto, an identical (except for AI) proposal
will be voted on the next week, and won't be subject
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed,
Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to creating
artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in that
way, but it sounds like quite a lot of extra work for very little ben
Zefram wrote:
> > I personally think we should be more restrictive about free proposing,
> > people (in general) have gotten out of the habit of proto-ing.
>
> I don't see the connection here.
If it costs something "tangible" to get a proposal distributed,
you don't pay that cost for a first dra
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>I personally think we should be more restrictive about free proposing,
>people (in general) have gotten out of the habit of proto-ing.
I don't see the connection here.
>Finally, the clause "right to have it voted on" is troubling. Is
>it "voted on" if a veto or guillotine end
Zefram wrote:
> I think it's been unhealthy in places. Short delays (such as the
> Speaker's Veto in practice achieves) seem fine, but not the indefinite
> delays and dropping of proposals that resulted from P-Notes and
> artificially restricted distribution.
Well, during the Papyri version of
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Should be covered by the "receive judgement" clause.
If you apply that to the appeal clause, that implies that a single appeal
will have to result in an appeal judgement (where currently three are
required).
An appeal receives three judgements, yes, but this c
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> There's been a healthy history of proposal-killing/delaying procedures
>that we should keep that this would stop (e.g. vetoes, making undistributable,
>distribution costs in general).
I think it's been unhealthy in places. Short delays (such as the
Speaker's Veto in pract
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Should be covered by the "receive judgement" clause.
If you apply that to the appeal clause, that implies that a single appeal
will have to result in an appeal judgement (where currently three are
required). Also, possibly, that an appeal judgement can be appealed.
-zefram
Murphy wrote:
>iv. Every person has the right to invoke a judgement, appeal a
>judgement, appeal a sentencing or judicial order binding em,
>and receive judgement in a timely fashion.
Looks good, for clarity, I'd suggest the "receive" clause right after
"invoke" c
Zefram wrote:
iv. Every person has the right to invoke a judgement, appeal a
judgement, appeal a sentencing or judicial order binding em,
and receive judgement in a timely fashion.
Might have to detail what appeal achieves, in the light of the judgement
on "invoke"
Ed Murphy wrote:
> iii. Every player has the right to submit a proposal and have it
>voted on in a timely fashion.
"... and have it adopted if popular"? Not sure how to phrase the
condition, but we definitely need such a clause.
>iv. Every person has the right to invoke
Proto-Proposal: Agora shall make no law...
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 101 (Agoran Rights and Privileges) by changing the labels
(iv through viii) to (v through ix) respectively, and by replacing this
text:
iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a
judgeme
19 matches
Mail list logo
