I’m calling this as TREASON because it creates an INDIGO rule where there was no such a rule before (Ais-R-BGN-1’s workaround merely promoted an INFRARED rule). Whether you enact an INDIGO rule, or enact a RED rule and change it to INDIGO, you are creating an INDIGO rule.

Kevan, at no time is an INDIGO rule created. A RED rule is created (“Create a new RED rule…”). Its clearance is then changed. The fact that a new INDIGO rule exists at the end of the proposal is moot.

This sentence is far too dangerous:

“Once the Citizen has subtracted the cost of the action from their Perversity Points, they may perform the action.”

It doesn’t specify how often the action may be performed. A safer wording would be “Any Citizen may spend X to do Y”.

Also, if perversity points are going to be this powerful, we probably need another way of getting them besides arrowing proposals.

per Purplebeard (the text seems to imply that after spending once, you can perform the action infinite times).

What I think is the only reasonable argument in favour of AGAINST, from IRC:

[19:47] <ais523> OK, the reasonable argument in favour of flurie’s post being treason is that flurie’s post has the overall effect of creating a high-clearance rule
[19:47] <ais523> even though no action in the proposal does so individually
[19:48] <ais523> if “authoring a proposal increasing a player’s clearance by 2 stages” was treason, then two proposals increasing it by one stage clearly wouldn’t be treason
[19:48] <ais523> one proposal increasing it by one stage twice? less clear

I’m not sure if this is strong enough to actually call flurie’s proposal treason.

I posted that on the wrong post (it was meant to be on the CFJ).

s/k pending a fix.

procedural