I’d have said this on the previous proposal if it hadn’t been procedurally vetoed, but you also need to specify that these are votes of AGAINST on the proposal that just enacted. (Otherwise it can be triggered by anyone who’s voted against any other proposals.)

Following Kevan’s reasoning.

Per kevan

I would also appreciate a clause that prevents this from applying to proposals that only affect core rules. 

Oh, and I’ll slow down with the procedural vetoes after the initial rush of proposals dies down. I think that this early in the dynasty, allowing everyone to get their ideas out and on the table asap is a Good Thing(tm).

Ah, good point Kevan. The meaning was implicit but I wasn’t precise enough with the language. I’ll also implement lilomar’s point too. s/k

Idle against per Kevan, lilomar, and also because if the High-Programmer votes AGAINST, it becomes treasonous to vote the same as the High-Programmer.

Might also be worth specifying that the admin who enacts the proposal has to assign the Treason adjustments (or that any Citizen can assign them within 24 hours of a proposal enacting, or something), rather than leaving it as a magically unspecified automatic effect.

Darth - This rule is intended to only happen if you vote AGAINST the outranking author, not any outranking Citizen. The Treason Points only get assigned if the proposal passes anyways.

If the author (i.e. High Programmer) vetoes his own proposal, it’ll self-kill anyways and no treason points will be assigned because of this. So I don’t think what you’re saying will happen because of this proposal.

Er, if the author votes against, not vetoes. I still don’t have the terminology down here.

I think non-Citizen Darth means that if the High-Programmer votes AGAINST someone’s proposal, anyone who agrees and also votes AGAINST could be committing treason, if the proposal passed. Perhaps it is odd for agreeing with a High-Programmer to be treasonous; perhaps there are times when High-Programmers are traitors or spies who should be ignored. I couldn’t possibly say, but I don’t think we should pay too much attention to theme concerns from someone who’s not actually playing.

Idle-voting “per” someone is a new low, though.

Also to be noted, voting deferential is not treason, so if you wish to agree with the High-Programmer, and still remain non-treasonous, that is an option.

Of course, lose-lose situations are par for the course in Paranoia.

Kevan - Oh, I see what you mean. It does fit within the flavor of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” flavor of Paranoia though. And you can always just vote DEF and follow the High Programmer without getting Treason points this way - after all, the High Programmer is always right!

For the encouragement of the NOT FUN practice of policing Proposals that I don’t like just to see if they might be passing so that I can alter my vote before it gets enacted.  Yuck.

While I think this needs to be altered, Hix, I think such distaste is in keeping with the theme.

Not that I find voting distasteful, High-Programmer. In fact, I very much enjoy it.

I like the concept, but there is another problem: (Really) active players will change their vote a few hours before the Proposal is enacted.

commendation point for icon-art.

procedural