You don't need anything but 'g wins the game' for it to work - and the rule itself isn't interesting, so even though I'd vote against it anyways, I'd vote extra against it because the rule is totally unnecessary - proposals can already do whatever they want.
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 21:21 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >
