- agora-talk - agora.nomic.space

Draft Proposal: De-Convoluting Mooting
by Katherina Walshe-Grey 17 Jan '25

17 Jan '25

This is attempting to fix the support requirement for Moots so that it can be predicted at the time the intent is tabled. Currently, it's dependent on the age of the judgement at the time the intent is *resolved*, so at the time it's tabled there are several possible values - and each must be intended individually, because the support requirement has to be explicitly stated at the time the intent is tabled. For consistency, I changed the support requirement for Motions to Reconsider in the same way (even though this is not troublesome as-is). It seems relatively straightforward, but I know the CFJ rules are very carefully written to avoid accidentally redefining past CFJs or CFJ- related actions out of existence, so I wanted to make sure people had the opportunity to comb over it before submitting it. (We all hate when buggy proposals get submitted without a drafting phase and end up being voted down on a technicality, I know.) //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Title: De-Convoluting Mooting Adoption Index: 1.7 Author: Kate Co-authors: Amend Rule 911, "Motions and Moots", by replacing the following text: If a judgement has been in effect for less then seven days and has not been entered into Moot, then: - The judge of that CFJ CAN self-file a Motion to Reconsider the case by announcement, if e has not already self-filed a Motion to Reconsider that CFJ. - Any Player CAN group-file a Motion to Reconsider the case with 2 support, if the CFJ has not had a Motion to Reconsider group-filed for it at any time while it has been assigned to its current judge. When a Motion to Reconsider is so filed, the case is rendered open again. If a CFJ has a judgement assigned, a player CAN enter that judgement into Moot with N+2 support, where N is the number of weeks since that judgement has been assigned, rounded down. with: The judge of a CFJ CAN by announcement self-file a Motion to Reconsider it, if its most recent judgement has been in effect for less than seven days. Any player CAN with 2 support group-file a Motion to Reconsider a case, if its most recent judgement had been in effect for less than seven days at the time the intent was tabled. The above notwithstanding, it is IMPOSSIBLE to file a Motion to Reconsider a CFJ whose judgement has been entered into Moot, or that has already had a Motion to Reconsider filed against it by the same method since it was most recently assigned to a judge. When a Motion to Reconsider a case is filed, the case is rendered open again. If a CFJ has a judgement assigned, a player CAN enter that judgement into Moot with N+2 support, where N is the number of weeks from the time the judgement was assigned to the time the intent was tabled, rounded down. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~qenya

2 4

Fwd: Draft: Rationalising Recordkeepors
by Edward Murphy 19 Aug '24

19 Aug '24

TTttDF. (Maybe it should add Reply-To: headers, to keep replies on the list by default.) -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: TLK: Draft: Rationalising Recordkeepors Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2024 14:08:09 -0700 From: Edward Murphy <murphy.agora(a)gmail.com> To: Katherina Walshe-Grey <lists(a)qenya.tel> Kate wrote: > Title: Rationalising Recordkeepors v1.1 Looks good to me, as far as it goes. Possible addition: Rename Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) to "Reports and Duties", and amend it by replacing this text: An officer SHALL publish eir report in plain text, with tabular data lining up properly when viewed in a monospaced font. Publishing a report that deviates from these restrictions is the Class 2 infraction of Making My Eyes Bleed. A player CAN, by announcement, petition a specified non-vacant office to take a specific action. The holder of that office SHALL publicly respond to that petition in a timely fashion. with this text: A person publishing a report SHALL do so in plain text, with tabular data lining up properly when viewed in a monospaced font. Publishing a report that deviates from these restrictions is the Class 2 infraction of Making My Eyes Bleed. A player CAN, by announcement, petition a specified person with a specified duty to take a specific action related to that duty. That person SHOULD publicly respond to that petition in a timely fashion. A player CAN petition a specified non-vacant office in the same fashion; its holder SHALL respond in the same fashion. [Maybe keep all petitions as "SHALL respond". Besides Hats, what other non-officer duties are currently defined?]

3 2

Draft: Rationalising Recordkeepors
by Katherina Walshe-Grey 18 Aug '24

18 Aug '24

Revising and expanding Murphy's Hats fix proposal from a couple of weeks ago in a way that also makes the language around tracking less confusing. Thanks to Janet for correcting some mistakes in an earlier draft. Would appreciate a few more eyes, will submit formally in a day or two if I hear nothing. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Title: Rationalising Recordkeepors v1.1 Adoption Index: 3.0 Author: Kate Co-authors: Janet, Murphy, 4st [The purpose of this proposal is to unify the language around "tracking" and "recordkeepors", which is currently subtly different for assets and switches and has caused a lot of confusion in the past. In particular, the word "recordkeepor" is currently not defined with respect to switches, only to assets; this is causing bizarre behaviour around Hats, the intention of which is to be tracked, but not by an officer.] Create a new Rule of Power 3.0, entitled "Recordkeepors", and reading as follows: For some entity or class of entities to be "tracked by" another entity is for the latter entity to be its recordkeepor. For an entity to be a recordkeepor for a type of switch is for that entity to be the recordkeepor for all instances of that switch. Where the rules specify a recordkeepor for some set of instances of a switch, that recordkeepor's (weekly, if not specified otherwise) report includes the value of each instance in that set whose value is not its default value; a public document purporting to be this portion of that recordkeepor's report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances in that set are at their default value. The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That recordkeepor's report includes a list of all instances of that class and their owners. A public document purporting to be this portion of that recordkeepor's report is self-ratifying. Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by removing the following: The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and their owners. A public document purporting to be this portion of that entity's report is self-ratifying. For a class of assets to be "tracked by" an entity is for that entity to be its recordkeepor. Amend Rule 2162 (Switches) by removing the following: 3. Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances of that switch. That officer's (weekly, if not specified otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that switch whose value is not its default value; a public document purporting to be this portion of that officer's report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances are at their default value. Amend Rule 2603 (Switch Responsibility) to read in full: For each type of switch that is not defined as untracked and that has at least one instance that would otherwise lack a recordkeepor, there exists an imposed office named "Tracker of [type name]" whose holder tracks those instances. Amend Rule 2694 (Hats) by replacing: Unless otherwise specified by the rules: 1) the recordkeepor for a player's hat is the player emself, and 2) reporting on hats is OPTIONAL. with: The recordkeepor for a player's hat is the player emself. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, reporting on one's own hat is OPTIONAL. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ~qenya

1 0

A matter for discussion
by Janet Cobb 05 Aug '24

05 Aug '24

Let it be known that, due to the adoption of Proposal 9146, this is now a Discussion forum. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor

3 2

Hello, world!
by Katherina Walshe-Grey 18 Jul '24

18 Jul '24

I wonder if I'm the only one signed up yet...? ~qenya

2 2

A first message
by janet＠unspecified.systems 17 Jul '24

17 Jul '24

Hello! From webmail even!

2 2