So, I (and I think some others) think we need a way to enforce peer review on 
proposals before they are voted on. Here are two proposals that would do that. 
I lean towards the second, but not strongly.

OPTION A
Amend rule 2350 by replacing “A player CAN create a proposal by announcement” 
with "A player CAN create a proposal by with 1 support.”

Advantages: minimal changes
Disadvantages: makes proposals rely on dependent actions and at least two 
players, which is a bit scary.

OPTION B
Append the following to rule 2350: "The Promotor CAN remove a proposal from the 
Proposal Pool by announcement if it is not pending and has been added to the 
Pool more than 14 days ago.”

Re-enact rule 2445 [how to pend a proposal], then amend it by replacing “any 
player” with “any player who is not the proposal’s author [or co-author?]"

Amend rule 1607 by appending "The Promotor SHALL NOT distribute proposals which 
are not pending.” to the third paragraph, and by replacing "distribute all 
proposals in the Proposal Pool except” with "distribute all pending proposals 
except.”

Advantages: more complex
Disadvantages: uses our existing pending wording, including all the safeguards 
that come with it (note that distributing non-pending proposals isn’t 
IMPOSSIBLE, just ILLEGAL).

OPTIONAL ADDITION (could be used with either option)
Create a Power-1 rule titled “The Lint Screen”: {
The Lint Screen is a set of regulations with the Rulekeepor as the Promulgator. 
The regulations in the Lint Screen SHOULD describe common errors in proposals, 
but they have legal power. Any player CAN create, amend, or repeal regulations 
in the Lint Screen with Agoran Consent.
} [is a regulation the right option for this? Maybe it should just be a pice of 
text the rulekeepor tracks]

Append to 2350/2445: “An attempt to {support the creation of/pend} a proposal 
is INEFFECTIVE unless the player doing so states, in the same message, that 
they have reviewed the proposal for any issues described in the Lint Screen. 
Such a proposal is never a lie for the purposes of rule 2471.”
[While people could just say that they’ve done this without doing so, it at 
least reminds them that they would be doing so. We can’t stop people from doing 
something stupid, but we can make sure they’re doing it by choice and not 
simply because they forgot.]

Gaelan

Reply via email to