Monday, February 22, 2021

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.

Comments

Josh: ELECTOR HE/HIM

22-02-2021 14:16:22 UTC

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.

pokes:

22-02-2021 14:19:40 UTC

That is a problem if it’s zero forever. I’ve (hopefully) edited it to clarify it’s not becoming zero.

Josh: ELECTOR HE/HIM

22-02-2021 16:30:18 UTC

for

Jumble:

22-02-2021 16:52:27 UTC

imperial

Kevan: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 16:59:16 UTC

for

Clucky: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 18:19:30 UTC

against

I’m not a fan of the “enact this proposal people already voted down” even though I like the original proposal

pokes:

22-02-2021 18:34:01 UTC

Top Banana Clucky: Why, given that it fixes the one specific complaint that was made about it? “Enact this failed proposal” at this point is just saving me a cut and paste, and assuring the reader that I haven’t pulled any sleight of hand inserting a scam into the proposal.

Josh: ELECTOR HE/HIM

22-02-2021 18:39:09 UTC

I’ll also note that Welcome to Favourtown has not actually failed yet, and is in fact stuck at 2-2.

Brendan: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 20:51:08 UTC

imperial

Clucky: HE/HIM

22-02-2021 21:21:35 UTC

Another issue I’ve realized with this:

Unsavoriness is trivial to gain. So it would be easy for a couple of people to sandbag. A cabal of 3 can pump three power per to their chosen leader every day. And then as long as two members of that cabal all choose to gain more unsavoriness, their leader’s power will continue to grow unchecked.

Feels a bit boring and reductive.

Jumble:

22-02-2021 22:19:29 UTC

against cov

Brendan: HE/HIM

23-02-2021 00:54:41 UTC

against CoV

Raven1207: HE/HIM

23-02-2021 05:35:32 UTC

imperial

Josh: ELECTOR HE/HIM

23-02-2021 09:58:58 UTC

Cov imperial per Clucky

pokes:

23-02-2021 12:34:50 UTC

@Clucky: Per “No Elector is under any obligation to uphold any promise made in public or in private at any time.”, if that happened, I would expect the chosen leader of the cabal to defect as soon as they were fully pumped and no longer in need of their Candidate support.

pokes:

23-02-2021 12:36:47 UTC

“A cabal of three can win” is the idea here.

Darknight: HE/HIM

23-02-2021 13:50:32 UTC

against