It seems to me that this would cause a heap of complications in writing proposals, which would need to include safeguards against disastrous partial applications. For example, a proposal that splits an important rule into two parts, by amending the original and creating a new one, could easily be vetoed to cancel the creation part.

Alternatively, voters could make votes conditional on whether there is a veto or not.

On the other hand, I can imagine occasional useful vetoes to cancel bugs and the like.

In sum, this proposal can't cause real trouble if proposal writers or voters are really careful, but that may be a tall assumption.


On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:

I submit the following proposal, line-item veto 2, AI-1:
Enact a Rule, "Line-item Veto", with the following text:

     The Comptrollor is an imposed office.  When the office is vacant,
     the ADoP CAN, by announcement, set the Comptroller to a player
     chosen at random from the set of current Officers, excepting any
     player who was most recently the Comptrollor.  The ADoP SHALL do
     so in a timely fashion after the office becomes vacant.

     When the Comptrollor office has been held for the same player for
     30 days, it becomes vacant.

     A Notice of Veto is a body of text, published by the Comptrollor,
     clearly, directly, and without obfuscation labelled within the
     publishing message as being a Notice of Veto.

     When a Comptrollor publishes a Notice of Veto, the office of
     Comptrollor becomes vacant.

     If the text of a Notice of Veto clearly indicates certain
     provisions within specified Proposals as being vetoed, and the
     voting period for a decision to adopt the proposal is ongoing
     when the Notice is published, then the provision is vetoed.
     For the purposes of this Rule, each individual change specified
     within a proposal's text is a "provision".

     Vetoed provisions in a proposal CANNOT be applied when that
     proposal takes effect.


Reply via email to