On 7/2/21 10:51 PM, Trigon via agora-discussion wrote: > Imagine, for instance, a proposal which reads as follows: > > "Enact a rule with parameters [...]. Repeal that rule. Enact another > rule. Repeal that rule." > > What we have here is an infinite pendant generator scheme. There needs > to be some kind of timeout for this mechanic to do anything.
Others have already pointed out a proposal can already do that. Likely, if a proposal looked designed just to generate pendants it would be shot down. > Even if this were fixed, I'm not sure I would vote FOR this proposal. Is > repealing rules a goal we should be working towards? I would argue that, > in most cases, it probably isn't. This rule would encourage players to > merge several different rules into one. I'm concerned about what this > would do for readability. I agree with this concern somewhat, but consider that this doesn't encourage all players to do so, it encourages individuals to do so. The proposer has incentive to merge and repeal, but everyone else still has normal voting incentive. So a proposal that does it poorly would probably not pass. -- nix Webmastor, Ministor, Herald
