Sunday, November 10, 2019

Proposal: [Core] backwards referential queue

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 10 Nov 2019 19:21:30 UTC

Append to rule 1.5 “Proposals” the following text:
If a Proposal refers to another Proposal by name, it is assumed to be the most recent Proposal in the queue that has that name and was posted during the current dynasty.

This is to help prevent confusion or scams that might happen when people refer to a proposal in the queue and to compartmentalize proposals to their own dynasties if referenced by a proposal from a later dynasty.

posted by card at 10 Nov 2019 04:44:00 UTC Comments (2)

Comments

Kevan: Concierge he/him

10-11-2019 08:05:05 UTC

against Hmm, I thought we already had a clause that covered this, but I can’t see it. But obscure edge cases should go in the glossary, not the core rules. And this wording endorses scams involving s future proposal (propose “enact proposal called X but without the subrule” in reference to a recent failed proposal, then, after some votes of support, propose “X” again as a new I-win proposal with a null subrule).

card:

10-11-2019 08:24:21 UTC

gah i messed up the wording. against guess i’ll try for a glossary version later. i meant for proposals already in the queue to not be able interact with proposals added after them. the obvious case being something like what Kevan talks about, which can still happen under the current rules.