Proposal: Difese, Denigrazioni e Dogi
Fewer than a quorum not voting against (2 FOR, 2 DEF, 4 AGA), under Imperial Deferentials. Failed by Kevan.
Adminned at 23 Feb 2021 15:50:00 UTC
If the proposal “Welcome to Favortown” was not enacted, enact it.
If “What We Do In The Shadows” was enacted, then:
- From “Scheming”: remove “Each Elector has a publicly tracked Unsavoriness, which is a non-negative integer defaulting to 0.”, change 12 to 6, and 15 to 8. Make “Scheming” a subrule of “Ethics of the Nobility”.
- In “Ethics of the Nobility”:
—Remove the sentence that begins “A positive value for Mistrust denotes an aggregate lack of trust…”
—Replace “At any time, the two Electors with the highest Mistrust are Candidates;” with “At any time, an Elector without more than one other Elector with an Unsavoriness greater than or equal to their own is a Candidate;”
—Replace “Mistrust” with “Unsavoriness” throughout.
—After “score change between -1 and 2, inclusive.” add “This change is applied to the subject of the Rumour.”
Otherwise, if “What We Do In The Shadows” was not enacted, then, at the end of “Scheming”, add:
At any time, an Elector without more than one other Elector with an Unsavoriness greater than or equal to their own is a Candidate; their Political Power is considered to be zero for the purposes of computing all Electors’ Political Heft.
Josh: Observer he/they
I think it makes more sense for Heft to be considered zero for Candidates rather than Power; Heft is purely determined by Power so will snap back to its persistent value if the Elector ceases to be a Candidate, but if Power is “considered to be zero” while the Elector is a Candidate then there’s a reasonable argument that their Power is just zero during that time, and doesn’t return once their Candidacy ends.