Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Loophole Fix
I disagree with your disagreement—it’s good to be able to trust our officers when we need to, but I see no reason to do so unnecessary. There are, of course, situations where it’s good to use the CAN but SHALL NOT, such as pending proposals, because it provides an escape hatch for broken stuff. But for a mini game with no bearing on any “core” stuff, CANNOT is definitely the right route IMO. Gaelan > On Jan 30, 2019, at 3:39 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I disagree with this in principle. This isn’t a loophole, it’s a matter of > trust. We should be able to trust our officers not to deliberately flout > the rules. We have social conventions for a reason. > > -Aris > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:37 PM D. Margaux wrote: >> >> I submit this proposal: >> >> Title: Favour Loophole Closure >> Author: D Margaux >> AI: 1 >> >> Amend Rule 2542 to replace: >> >> “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed >> Parties, but SHALL NOT do so except as required by rule.” >> >> With: >> >> “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed >> Parties only to the extent required by rule.”
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Loophole Fix
That clarifies, I wasn't sure if you meant "undoing the win" as a process we tried to write up into a rule to work by Consent or something, or whether you meant doing it "manually" by writing a proposal that says "D. Margaux didn't win and these effects are undone". Manually it is. I think a wholesale "reform" (by reform I mean expansion I guess) along ais523's is the way to go. The past attempts focused on platonic determinations (the win is deemed to have not occurred if a judge finds illegality) and were complicated by all sorts of squishy stuff - e.g. what if someone earns eir first balloon illegally (but possibly accidentally) then earns 23 more balloons in a legit way? What happens if you bribe someone else to break the rule? What happens if someone breaks a rule to push you over the winning threshold against your will? Etc. If the model is "a consensus model" where some kind of consent process finds whether the illegal win was "fair" (e.g. if the violation was incidental or minor or forced unwillingly by someone else it stands by consent) it could be squishy about these sorts of things. (despite having started this conversation today, I wasn't intending to take the lead on such a rules reform - now expanded because ais523's comments about multiple wins and resets are spot-on!) On 1/30/2019 4:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I’m a tad confused about what you’re asking. What I meant was to declare the win prospectively void (i.e. make it so that the proposition that e won becomes false, even though it used to be true) and then remove the Speakership, Champion title, and any influence gained, each by a specific provision operating prospectively. Or we could retroactively undo it, which would be simpler but would make officers' reports (at least the Clork, maybe others) invalid. All of that would be a one time thing. Then we would draft a rule to make such wins illegal in future, which would be more complicated (maybe something along the lines of what ais suggested?). I’d be happy to work on either of those proposals. Am I answering your question, or have I missed the point of it? -Aris On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:03 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: By "undo the win" do you mean a consent process on some level? Or a platonic nullification of the win (trying to draft the latter is what caused all the issues). On 1/30/2019 3:47 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: FTR, my preferred remedy for this situation would be to undo the win and any consequences of it and then pass a rule saying that a person CANNOT win if doing e does it by violating a rule. For good measure, I’d add to the ruleset somewhere that deliberate rulebreaking for personal gain is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. -Aris On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:39 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: I disagree with this in principle. This isn’t a loophole, it’s a matter of trust. We should be able to trust our officers not to deliberately flout the rules. We have social conventions for a reason. -Aris On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:37 PM D. Margaux wrote: I submit this proposal: Title: Favour Loophole Closure Author: D Margaux AI: 1 Amend Rule 2542 to replace: “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed Parties, but SHALL NOT do so except as required by rule.” With: “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed Parties only to the extent required by rule.”
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Loophole Fix
I’m a tad confused about what you’re asking. What I meant was to declare the win prospectively void (i.e. make it so that the proposition that e won becomes false, even though it used to be true) and then remove the Speakership, Champion title, and any influence gained, each by a specific provision operating prospectively. Or we could retroactively undo it, which would be simpler but would make officers' reports (at least the Clork, maybe others) invalid. All of that would be a one time thing. Then we would draft a rule to make such wins illegal in future, which would be more complicated (maybe something along the lines of what ais suggested?). I’d be happy to work on either of those proposals. Am I answering your question, or have I missed the point of it? -Aris On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:03 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > By "undo the win" do you mean a consent process on some level? Or a > platonic nullification of the win (trying to draft the latter is what > caused > all the issues). > > On 1/30/2019 3:47 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > FTR, my preferred remedy for this situation would be to undo the win and > > any consequences of it and then pass a rule saying that a person CANNOT > win > > if doing e does it by violating a rule. For good measure, I’d add to the > > ruleset somewhere that deliberate rulebreaking for personal gain is > > STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:39 PM Aris Merchant < > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I disagree with this in principle. This isn’t a loophole, it’s a matter > of > >> trust. We should be able to trust our officers not to deliberately flout > >> the rules. We have social conventions for a reason. > >> > >> -Aris > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:37 PM D. Margaux > wrote: > >> > >>> I submit this proposal: > >>> > >>> Title: Favour Loophole Closure > >>> Author: D Margaux > >>> AI: 1 > >>> > >>> Amend Rule 2542 to replace: > >>> > >>> “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed > >>> Parties, but SHALL NOT do so except as required by rule.” > >>> > >>> With: > >>> > >>> “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed > >>> Parties only to the extent required by rule.” > >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Loophole Fix
By "undo the win" do you mean a consent process on some level? Or a platonic nullification of the win (trying to draft the latter is what caused all the issues). On 1/30/2019 3:47 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: FTR, my preferred remedy for this situation would be to undo the win and any consequences of it and then pass a rule saying that a person CANNOT win if doing e does it by violating a rule. For good measure, I’d add to the ruleset somewhere that deliberate rulebreaking for personal gain is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. -Aris On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:39 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: I disagree with this in principle. This isn’t a loophole, it’s a matter of trust. We should be able to trust our officers not to deliberately flout the rules. We have social conventions for a reason. -Aris On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:37 PM D. Margaux wrote: I submit this proposal: Title: Favour Loophole Closure Author: D Margaux AI: 1 Amend Rule 2542 to replace: “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed Parties, but SHALL NOT do so except as required by rule.” With: “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed Parties only to the extent required by rule.”
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Loophole Fix
FTR, my preferred remedy for this situation would be to undo the win and any consequences of it and then pass a rule saying that a person CANNOT win if doing e does it by violating a rule. For good measure, I’d add to the ruleset somewhere that deliberate rulebreaking for personal gain is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. -Aris On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:39 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I disagree with this in principle. This isn’t a loophole, it’s a matter of > trust. We should be able to trust our officers not to deliberately flout > the rules. We have social conventions for a reason. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:37 PM D. Margaux wrote: > > > I submit this proposal: > > > > Title: Favour Loophole Closure > > Author: D Margaux > > AI: 1 > > > > Amend Rule 2542 to replace: > > > > “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed > > Parties, but SHALL NOT do so except as required by rule.” > > > > With: > > > > “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed > > Parties only to the extent required by rule.” >
