Ah, here's the protection I was looking for:
R2350 (power=3):
Once a proposal
is created, neither its text nor any of the aforementioned
attributes can be changed.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:48 AM Aris Merchant
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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 <[email protected]> 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
> > >
> > > ---------
> >
