Comments appreciated on the following. I'll remove the last paragraph if everyone agrees it's not needed. Does anyone object to giving G. the win?
-Aris Title: All hail the Speaker! Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Enact a new rule, entitled "Victory by Proposal", Power = 1.0: If a proposal of at least AI 1.0 is adopted, and it clearly and unambiguously specifies that a person or set of persons win the game, they win the game. This rule is retroactive to immediately before the resolution of the proposal that adopted it. If this rule has existed for any non infinitesimal period of time, any player CAN cause it to amend itself by removing this paragraph. G. wins the game. On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > First, yes pls give me a win - Kicking myself for missing apathy :). > > In the past, I've personally been a very "political" player, by that I mean > into > gaming political systems - checks and balances, proposal procedure, > ministerial > positions with different powers that make for good combos, interesting > incentives > (e.g. reward structures) for proposals that invite competition etc. I > actually > prefer that to economic games, though I don't mind those either - in a game > play > sense, I *liked* the fact that I could use a must-pass bugfix proposal as > leverage > to seek a minimum income, for example. > > And it's been a while since we've had a "complicated" (read: playable) > political > system. So I'm actually in support of a muscular speaker using eir > powers in general, even to the level of "overdoing" it a bit. We could use a > little more BlogNomic, in that it would be fun if the Speaker had enough power > to give a "flavor" to eir dynasty (in a limited and wholly Agoran way, of > course, > there's the rub). > > As long as it's done generally politely... the main disadvantage is that > people > put a lot of effort into the proposals they write, and prefer them to be > voted on > their merits, so having good proposals go down when they get caught up in > "politics" > causes bad feelings - that definitely worries me. > > That said, I'm in support of a muscular speaker for good or ill, I'm in > support of > adding "political" systems like impeachment. The Speaker has variously been a > prize for winning, but has also been elected at times (though we didn't have > the > PM, which fills the "elected for power" role). With the PM existing, I think > it's > a bit boring to make the Speaker "just another election", but it would be > good to > explore some kinds of checks and balances - if the PM and Speaker together are > ne'er-do-wells, what procedural games can we add to have factions and the > like as > a balance? > > Of course - one shouldn't go for re-envisioning a whole political system when > the > economy is so fragile - one form of chaos at a time please - but food for > thought. > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> Works the same imo. Voting them in because they're wanted or voting them out >> because >> they're not wanted gives similar result I believe, it's just a matter of >> adding democracy >> into the mix. >> >> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:20 AM, Aris Merchant >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Maybe add impeachment proceedings? That seems generally advisable, >> past this specific occasion. >> >> -Aris >> >> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > That can be cool too. Although if people dereg each time I may win >> in future >> > circumstances (or someone else they may disagree enough with), I >> suggest >> > amending the Speaker position to an elected office. >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Aris Merchant >> > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Oh dear. I recommend we install a new speaker by proposal. How about >> >> G.? We don't even have to give em a win, although we could if people >> >> wanted to do that. >> >> >> >> -Aris >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > On 09/13/17 16:58, VJ Rada wrote: >> >> >> Because we currently have no speaker if Cuddlebeam was not the >> >> >> speaker, and because e is in both sets of possible recent >> winners, I >> >> >> appoint Cuddlebeam speaker. >> >> > >> >> > After consideration, it strikes me as flagrantly beligerent to >> make CB >> >> > the Speaker. From a mechanical standpoint, e has a tendency to >> object to >> >> > things for no good reason and now has full veto power. From a >> >> > 'figurehead leader of Agora' standpoint, I have no intent of >> being part >> >> > of a community represented by someone prone to sexism, racism, and >> >> > misgendering. >> >> > >> >> > If CB is the Speaker, I submit the above as a Cantus Cygneus. >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I also yellow card myself for being bad in several ways. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >>
