Index ← 3810 CFJ 3811 3812 → text
===============================  CFJ 3811  ===============================

      There exists an Agoran decision for proposal 8317.

==========================================================================

Caller:                        Gaelan

Judge:                         Aris
Judgement:                     FALSE

==========================================================================

History:

Called by Gaelan:                                 10 Feb 2020 00:04:49
Assigned to Aris:                                 19 Feb 2020 15:21:09
Judged FALSE by Aris:                             24 Feb 2020 03:18:28

==========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:42 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 18:30, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 2/9/2020 3:21 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>>> PROPOSAL 8317 (Zombie trade)
>>> FOR (5): Alexis%, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg&
>>> AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian$, G., Jason, Rance, o
>>> PRESENT (0):
>>> BALLOTS: 11
>>> AI (F/A): 21/19 (AI=1.0)
>>> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>>
>> This one is very broken if its AI is 1 because it tries to modify a 
>> bunch of power=2 rules.  In the distribution message, it is listed as 
>> AI-2 in the top part:
>>> 8317e  Alexis                   2.0   Zombie trade
>>
>> and AI-1 in the bottom part:
>>
>>> ID: 8317
>>> Title: Zombie trade
>>> Adoption index: 1.0
>>
>> I'm guessing it's really AI-2 (and thus fails completely?) because I
>> doubt the author would make that big a mistake (including creating a 
>> "new power-2 Rule") but I could be wrong?
>
> The original AI was 2 when it was submitted. Noticing this error
> within the week of distribution would invalidate it for lack of
> clarity, but it's self-ratified, so I believe it's properly
> distributed at AI=2 now.
>
> -Alexis

I’m not so sure it self-ratified, actually.

1551/21 reads, in part: {
An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified; however, 
if such a document can be divided into a summary section and a main 
section, where the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize 
information in the main section, and the main section is internally 
consistent, ratification of the document proceeds as if it contained only 
the main section.
}

1607/47 reads, in part: {
The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal 
Pool, along with their text and attributes. This portion of a public 
document purporting to be a Promotor's report is self-ratifying.
}

The Promotor’s message listed the attributes twice, and the text once, of 
each proposal. So this depends on what “this portion” means: does it mean 
the list at the top as well as the full proposals below, or just the full 
proposals below?

If it means just the full proposals, then the proposal ratified at AI 1.

If it means both, then we’ve got an internally inconsistent document, 
according to the 1551 clause I quoted. The question, then, is whether or 
not the "document can be divided into a summary section and a main 
section, where the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize 
information in the main section.” The key bit here is “only purpose”—the 
list at the top is actually part of another action (“I hereby distribute 
each listed proposal…”), but that action isn’t part of the self-ratifying 
document, so maybe in this context it only serves on purpose?

If the “summary” clause applies, then it ratified at AI 1.

If not, the document is internally inconsistent and didn’t ratify at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Aris's Arguments:

In this case, the index of proposals at the top and the full text
beneath differed as to an essential parameter of the proposal, namely the
AI. Per Rule 107, the notice initiating an Agoran decision must
"clearly specify" all essential parameters. Having two different values 
for the same parameter within the same message is hardly clear. 
Accordingly, the distribution notice was invalid, and the proposal was 
never distributed. For the arguments about ratification, see CFJ 3812. 
FALSE.


Judge Aris's Evidence:

Rule 107/21 (Power=3)
Initiating Agoran Decisions

  An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to
  initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent
  to initiate the decision. To be valid, the notice must clearly
  specify the following information:

  1. The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of
     proposal 4781");

  2. The voting method;

  3. A clear description of the valid options;

  4. The identity of the vote collector; and

  5. Any additional information defined by the rules as essential
     parameters.

  The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period
  for the decision. The voting period lasts for 7 days. The minimum
  voting period for a decision with at least two options is five
  days. The vote collector for a decision with less than two options
  CAN and SHALL end the voting period by announcement, if it has not
  ended already, and provided that e resolves the decision in the
  same message.

  The voting period for a decision cannot be set or changed to a
  duration longer than fourteen days.

  A public notice purporting to initiate an Agoran decision is a
  self-ratifying attestation of the notice's validity.

Rule 1607/46 (Power=3)
Distribution

      The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving
      and distributing proposals.

      Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For
      this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption
      index is initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if
      the proposal does not have one, and the text, author, and
      coauthors of the proposal are essential parameters. Initiating
      such a decision is known as distribution, and removes the proposal
      from the Proposal Pool.

      The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
      Pool at any time.

      In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each
      proposal that was in the Proposal Pool at the beginning of that
      week, except for those excepted from automatic distribution by
      other rules, or those that are otherwise removed from the Pool.

      Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the
      Promotor.

      If there is a Proposal in the Pool that it would otherwise be
      IMPOSSIBLE for any player to distribute, then any player CAN
      distribute that Proposal without 3 objections.

      The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the
      Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes. This portion
      of a public document purporting to be a Promotor's report is
      self-ratifying.

Rule 1950/35 (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).

  Adoption index is secured with a power threshold of 2.

  Adoption index is an essential parameter of an Agoran decision if
  that decision has an adoption index.

  For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the voting method
  is AI-majority.

==========================================================================