Could you explain why this closes the loophole because I see no way in which this affects one's ability to force a proposal through? ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2017-05-01 at 00:37 +0100, Alex Smith wrote: >> I submit the following AI-3 proposal, "Yet Another Scam": > > Actually, thinking about it, this scam is /way/ too dangerous to > potentially leave around in the ruleset, which is what would happen if > I fail to force the above proposal through. Unfortunately, a direct fix > proposal would run the risk of making it too easy to figure out what > the scam is. > > First, some explanations: > * The scam is a proposal forcethrough scam; it causes a proposal to be > enacted regardless of how other players vote on it. > * If two people know what the scam is, one of whom is trying to force > a proposal through and the other of whom is trying to prevent it > being forced through, it's currently unclear to me who would end up > getting their way. This means that I can't reliably block attempts > by other people to use the scam, and also that I can't rely on the > scam succeeding. > * As such, if the scam becomes publicly known, it's likely that the > Promotor (currently Aris), who has control over the order in which > proposals are distributed, would get the first chance at forcing > through a proposal. I'm not particularly in the mood for giving Aris > a dictatorship. (This also means that if you figure out how the scam > works yourself, letting Aris know is probably a bad idea.) > * The scam can only force through proposals that are actually > distributed, and so preventing the pending of scam proposals is a > reliable way to stop it (thus the clauses that do so in my own scam > proposal). > > The conclusions I draw from this are that I can't let anyone know how > the scam works until the relevant parts of the ruleset were fixed. I > was originally planning to do this via the scam itself, in the typical > Agoran tradition of "closing the loophole behind you". > > However, there's also potentially another way; because preventing a > scam proposal being pended will stop the scam, and because there seems > to be only a limited amount of harm in making this publicly known, it's > possible to write a fix proposal that targets this aspect of the scam > without potentially opening up the scam to the whole of Agora. So it > seems prudent to do that, and urgently. > > I submit the following proposal, "Emergency Scam Fix", AI 1: > {{{{ > Amend rule 2445 by replacing > {{{ > to "pending" by announcement. > }}} > with > {{{ > to "pending" Without 3 Objections. > }}} > }}}} > > I pay 6 Shinies to pend "Emergency Scam Fix". > > I Expedite that proposal, specially deputising for the Promotor to > distribute the proposal, as follows: > > I hereby distribute the following proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, and the > valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > > ID Author(s) AI Title Pender Pend fee (sh.) > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > 7848 ais523 1.0 Emergency Scam Fix ais523 6 > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal is as follows: > {{{{ > Amend rule 2445 by replacing > {{{ > to "pending" by announcement. > }}} > with > {{{ > t > o "pending" Without 3 Objections. > }}} > }}}} > > -- > ais523
