DIS: Re: BUS: let's proceed to the second line-item
I’m all for more meta-shenanigans—it’s a game about changing the rules, and it’s only right to change the rules about changing the rules. However, I am with ais523 that we should have a power restriction. Also, if this is a real proposal, you might want to just avoid the power debate. IMO, put the rule at power 2 and have it work by reverting rules (and anything else 2-secured) to their state immediately before the proposal. Gaelan > On Feb 24, 2019, at 4:36 PM, 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. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: let's proceed to the second line-item
On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 01:11 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > What about just requiring Agoran Consent? Seems like the obvious way > to protect something that could be useful or dangerous depending on > who's using it. Historically, we've restricted this sort of screwing with proposals to proposals whose AI is within a certain range (e.g. strictly less than 2). That protects the integrity of the high-powered rules, but means that you still have a lot to mess around with, because setting the AI that high would be unlikely unless it was necessary (and in any case would make the proposal harder to pass). There was also a long-lasting and somewhat controversial rule allowing players to negate any sort of screwing with proposals with 3 support. I think it made scamming much more interesting, because a necessary condition for any sort of proposal forcethrough scam was that players didn't notice anything suspicious about the proposal in question (otherwise they'd pre-emptively "democratise" the proposal in case it was part of a scam). In hindsight, this sort of protection also had the effect of making players much more willing to experiment with rules that allowed interference with proposals; the fact that a safety mechanism was there meant we could be riskier with other rules concerning proposal tampering. Incidentally, this is also the era that most of the escalator scams came from; your proposal forcethrough couldn't get past the "automatic democratisation" barrier, so instead you made an AI 1 proposal that was intentionally buggy and lead to a Power 1 dictatorship, then tried to find a way to wheedle that into a full dictatorship over the whole of Agora. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: let's proceed to the second line-item
What about just requiring Agoran Consent? Seems like the obvious way to protect something that could be useful or dangerous depending on who's using it. -twg Original Message On 25 Feb 2019, 01:08, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > 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. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > On Sun, 24 Feb [2019](tel: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. >> >> >> >>
DIS: Re: BUS: let's proceed to the second line-item
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. Greetings, Ørjan. 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.
