Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protection Racket

[Ed Murphy]

Zefram wrote:


Ed Murphy wrote:

 An Oligarch may refuse a proposal by announcement.  A refused
 proposal ceases to be a proposal.


Nice try, but I don't think this will work at Power=1.  Rule 106
at Power=3 calls for a proposal to be adopted if the vote on it is
favourable, which I think your ceases to be a proposal provision would
conflict with.


If it's not a proposal any more, then R106 falls silent, yes?  We expect
to get some entertaining CFJs out of this one.


There are, to be sure, several other ways that a Power=1 rule can grant
emperorhood.  Move on half a sentence in R106 and you find unless other
rules prevent it from taking effect, so you could win with A refused
proposal cannot take effect even if adopted..  You could also have had
The voting period of a refused proposal is 106 years..


That would be Terrible.


I was just thinking (a few hours ago) that a good legislative project at
this point would be to restructure and upmutate parts of the proposal
system to prevent such abuses.  The objective would be that all the
machinery for adopting Democratic proposals would be at Power=3,


Why not Power=2?


with strictly limited scope for interference by Power=1 rules.


This sounds like an entertaining challenge.

DIS: proto: public policy

[Zefram]

Here's a possible temporary patch on the proposal system, pending
upmutation of the right bits of the proposal system:

{{{

Enact a rule with Power=2, title Public Policy, and text:

  The Speaker is obliged to veto any Ordinary Proposal whose effect
  if adopted would in eir estimation achieve any of these results:

  * seriously hinder the adoption of Democratic proposals

  * allow any person or group of people to seriously hinder the
adoption of Democratic proposals; for the purposes of this clause
a player voting AGAINST a proposal does not thereby seriously
hinder its adoption

  * allow the adoption of Democratic proposals where the proportion
of players expressing an opinion who vote in favour is less
than AI/(AI+1)

}}}

-zefram

Re: DIS: proto: public policy

[quazie]

Zefram wrote:

Here's a possible temporary patch on the proposal system, pending
upmutation of the right bits of the proposal system:

{{{

Enact a rule with Power=2, title Public Policy, and text:

  The Speaker is obliged to veto any Ordinary Proposal whose effect
  if adopted would in eir estimation achieve any of these results:

  * seriously hinder the adoption of Democratic proposals
  
I feel like if someone was crafty enough e could write up a proposal 
that would hinder the adoption of Democratic proposals that wouldn't 
be immediately seen to do so.  Furthermore if a chain of proposals pass 
and proposal A creates a rule that allows player B to write proposal C 
and proposal C seriously hinders the adoption of Democratic proposals 
couldn't it be argued that proposal A was also the culprit?  In either 
of these situations would the speaker have violated a rule if e did not 
realize that was happening? 

  * allow any person or group of people to seriously hinder the
adoption of Democratic proposals; for the purposes of this clause
a player voting AGAINST a proposal does not thereby seriously
hinder its adoption

  * allow the adoption of Democratic proposals where the proportion
of players expressing an opinion who vote in favour is less
than AI/(AI+1)

}}}

-zefram

  

Re: DIS: proto: public policy

[Zefram]

quazie wrote:
and proposal A creates a rule that allows player B to write proposal C 
and proposal C seriously hinders the adoption of Democratic proposals 
couldn't it be argued that proposal A was also the culprit?

I'd say in that case proposal C is the culprit.

 In either 
of these situations would the speaker have violated a rule if e did not 
realize that was happening? 

No.  The magic words are in eir estimation.  If the Speaker innocently
misses a bad proposal then that's just the game's bad fortune.  I expect
in any likely case people would discuss a suspect proposal, so the
Speaker would almost certainly be aware of any controversy.

The only way to violate the rule would be if a Speaker had serious
suspicion that a proposal was going to have a bad effect and e
nevertheless omitted to veto it.  It's not particularly onerous.

-zefram

Re: DIS: proto: public policy

[Zefram]

Taral wrote:
Too subjective. How about a rule that lets anyone make a proposal
Democratic, with some amount of support?

Interesting.  Reminiscent of the Guillotine Application mechanism (R1726)
that I enacted back in 1997, whereby players could end the voting
period of a proposal early.  It might be a good idea, I'm just wary
about effectively removing the Ordinary Proposal concept from the game.
I'm up for it as a temporary measure, at least.

-zefram