I’m not entirely sure it works out that way. However, in any case, I think you just found a power escalation vulnerability. If one had a power-1 dictatorship, one could amend a power-3 proposal just before it was about to pass and then get a power three dictatorship. If you controlled the office of the Assessor, then you could wait 4 days before resolving the proposal, satisfying the 4 day rule.
-Aris On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > Fogive me if I misunderstand, but isn't the power of a proposal 0 unless > and until the Decision about it results in ADOPTED? Thus, during the > voting period, the Comptrollor would still have higher power than the > proposal, fulfilling the requirements of Rule 2140. > > On 6/6/19 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > When comptrollor was proposed, frankly the main point was to > > illustrate the big security hole in R106 (R106's "except as > > prohibited" clause permits low-power rules to affect the operation of > > high-power proposals). > > > > This is fixed by a small addition to R2140, which places that rule's > > precedence claim above R106. Thereafter (assuming I've got this > > right), the comptrollor veto will only be able to affect proposals > > with the power of the comptrollor rule or less (currently 1). > > > > I submit the following proposal, "power-limit precedence", AI-3: > > > > ---------- > > > > Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing: > > No entity with power below > > with: > > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no entity with power below > > > > --------- >
