Cuz wins shouldn't be that easy, wins by proposal are only interesting if you've broken voting and scammed a win. On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 21:42 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why would you vote against? Other than the extra rule? > > -Aris > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:30 PM Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>
