{Create a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Emergencies", and with the following
text:
A public message (or part of one) is an Emergency Message if and only if it is
clearly identified as such.
The State of Agora is a singleton switch, tracked by the Registrar in eir
weekly report, with possible values "normal" (default) or "emergency".
If (and only if) its value is the later, Agora is in a "State of Emergency".
The Prime Minister may flip the State of Agora by announcement.
An Emergency Action is any game action taken in an Emergency Message, or while
Agora is in a State of Emergency, and requiring that condition to be
effective.
[The intent here is to provide two levels of emergency, one which can be used
as necessary, and one which can be authorized only by the PM.]
If Agora is in a State of Emergency, declared by the Prime Minister, then one
week from the time of its declaration, and every week thereafter, the State of
Agora shall become normal. The above notwithstanding, the State of Agora shall
not automatically reset, if, within the 48 hours before the time when it would
otherwise do so, the Speaker has renewed the State of Emergency by
announcement.
The above mechanisms are collectively known as Emergencies.
A player SHOULD only use Emergencies if doing so is in the public interest
of Agora. A player SHALL NOT use Emergencies for personal gain.
Amend rule 2445, by adding as a paragraph at the end:
The Promotor CAN, as an Emergency Action, pend a proposal by announcement.}
Recently I've been thinking about what might be necessary to defend
Agora against various threats. Some of these involve deliberate action
on the part of players, and some are things that could happen
accidentally. The only solution I see is to give the officers more
powers, but that comes with it's own host of problems. Some of the new
powers that I'm thinking of could be used in scams, or could easily
accidentally mess up the game. The solution appears to be to provide a
way to discourage people from using them casually, or in scams. I'd
like to thank o for helping me work out my thoughts on the above
proposal, and emphasize that any errors in it are entirely my fault.
One of the problems that o raised is that my proposal provides few
limitations on the abuse of Emergencies. My response: "At the end of
the day, this has to be grounded in a cultural acceptance that these
are for the public good. Whatever penalties we
specify, the only way this will work is social pressure and norms.
That's why I'm not so sure about trying to punish people. It might
actually work against the needed culture. This needs to be a no-scams
area of the game. The other safeguard is of course the reliability of
our officers. They need to be able to work for the public benefit.
That's why in the current draft it's just a matter of announcement.
I'm hoping that having to write "this is an emergency message" will
make people really think about what they're doing, and why."
While I still think that's true, I do have a few ideas about how to
limit the use of Emergencies. One is for the rule specifying the
Emergency Action provide "advice and consent" clauses, requiring the
agreement of multiple officers. Another more immediate method would be
to change the SHOULD in the last paragraph to a SHALL. I'd like to
request public comment on my proposal, and again thank o for for eir
assistance.
-Aris
