I hereby submit the following proposals:
proposal: calendar cleanup
AI: 2
{{{
Enact a power=2 rule titled "Calendar" with text
Times of day are by default specified using the hours, minutes,
and seconds of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), as maintained
by the BIPM and the IERS. "Greenwich Mean Time" ("GMT") is
acceptable as a synonym for UTC, but deprecated due to its
imprecision. Where timezones are used, they are by default
specified in the form of offsets from UTC. Each day begins at
00:00 (midnight).
The calendar units of month and year are defined according to
the Gregorian calendar, as specified in ISO 8601. In
particular, each year begins at the beginning of 1 January.
The calendar unit of quarter is defined as a recurring
three-month period aligned with the year. Quarters begin when
the months of January, April, July, and October begin.
The calendar unit of week is defined as a recurring seven-day
period, as specified in ISO 8601. In particular, each week
begins at the beginning of Monday.
[More precise and formal than the current definitions. The references
to ISO 8601 (see copy at <http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~vgent/calendar/
downloads/iso_8601_2004.pdf>) disambiguate some details of the
calendars (proleptic usage, year boundaries, and week boundaries) and
provide a convenient canonical definition. The additional explication
regarding UTC clarifies that we really do mean UTC rather than UT1 or
any of the other things that has been commonly known as "GMT".]
Amend rule 1023 by deleting the item that contains the text "Agoran
epochs:".
[Calendar stuff moves to its own rule because it's a completely
different topic from the other things in rule 1023. This rule started
out defining only "as soon as possible".]
Amend rules 1769 and 1750 by replacing "Agoran week" with "week".
[The old definitions in R1023 were for terms "Agoran day", "Agoran
week", and so on. The prefix wasn't actually doing anything useful,
and almost all uses of the definitions just used the plain terms
"day", "week", and so on. These two rules are the only places that
included the prefix.]
}}}
proposal: equity court
AI: 1.7
{{{
Enact a power=1.7 rule with title "Equity Cases" and text
There is a subclass of judicial case known as an equity case.
An equity case's purpose is to correct a potential injustice in
the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be
initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which
clearly identifies the contract, the set of parties to the
contract, and a state of affairs whereby events have not
proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not
limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual
obligations).
The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase.
During the pre-trial phase, the case requires a judge. In the
pre-trial phase the judge SHALL as soon as possible inform all
the contracting parties of the case and invite them to submit
arguments regarding the equitability of the situation. The
pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so
informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that
they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase.
The parties to the contract are all unqualified to be assigned
as judge of the case.
An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is
applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The
valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements
that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules.
A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably
equitable resolution of the the situation at hand with respect
to the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the
parties in the course of the case.
When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a
judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past
week, the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement between
the parties. In this role it is subject to modification or
termination by the usual processes governing binding agreements.
An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity
case within the past week, other than an assignment caused by a
judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any party to
the contract in question by announcement.
}}}
proposal: stronger definition of paradox
AI: 3
{{{
Amend rule 2110 to read
If an inquiry case on the possibility of a rule-defined action
or the permissibility of an action results in a judgement of
UNDECIDABLE, and that judgement is not appealed within a week,
then the initiator of the inquiry case wins the game if e is a
player. This can only occur once per inquiry case.
[The reformed judicial system provides a clear way to indicate a legal
paradox, so let's use it. Requiring the use of a CFJ for the win by
paradox avoids a lot of woolliness in the first clause of the current
R2110, and also makes it easier to establish who should get the win.]
}}}
proposal: empty throne
AI: 3
{{{
Retitle rule 103 to "Empty Throne" and amend it to read
The office of speaker is permanently vacant. There is no
obligation to attempt to fill it.
[This is the ultimate development of the speaker as non-executive head
of state. The speaker's primary role is to embody the spirit of
Agora: I can think of nothing that embodies that spirit better than a
vacant office which nevertheless can fulfill all of its duties.]
Award the patent title "Last Speaker" to the player who was speaker
immediately before this proposal was adopted.
}}}
proposal: spending multiple VCs on VVLOP
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2126 by replacing the text
a) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to increase
another player's VVLOP by one.
b) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to increase
eir own VVLOP by one.
c) A player may spend two VCs of different colors to decrease
another player's VVLOP by one (to a minimum of zero).
d) A player may spend three VCs of different colors to decrease
another player's VVLOP by ten percent.
with
a) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to increase
another player's VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
b) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to increase
eir own VVLOP by N, where N >= 1.
c) A player may spend N+1 VCs of different colors to decrease
another player's VVLOP by N (to a minimum of zero).
d) A player may spend N+2 VCs of different colors to multiply
another player's VVLOP by (10-N)/10, where 1 <= N <= 10.
[Generalises all current ways to spend VCs on VVLOP, to produce
progressively greater per-VC effect as the number of colors involved
rises. With rare colors around, this introduces a tension between the
efficiency of spending more colors at once and the desire to collect
all colors for the palette win (if that's adopted). In some cases
it's even worth transferring VCs (via the one-for-two mechanism) in
order to cooperate in a VC spend.]
}}}
-zefram
