Sunday, October 10, 2021

Proposal: No Mandatory Elevators

Withdrawn. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 12 Oct 2021 16:56:38 UTC

Add to the end of the rule “Floors” the following:

If a Citizen’s Goal includes one or more Floors or Zones, and the enactment of a Proposal would update that Citizen’s Floor so that it is not among those Floors or Zones, and that Citizen’s final Vote on that Proposal is AGAINST, then instead, that Citizen’s Floor is not updated by that Proposal.

If you’ve updated your Goal since “Automated Deliveries” and would like me to revise this proposal to bribe you with it, feel free to comment to that effect.

Comments

redtara: they/them

10-10-2021 17:48:33 UTC

This gives any citizen who would be moved by a proposal veto power over that proposal, since they can update their Goal at any time, including after the edit window has closed or immediately prior to adminning the proposal.

Zack: he/him

10-10-2021 17:52:43 UTC

How about something like “If the enactment of a proposal would update a Citizen’s floor and that citizen has a valid vote of AGAINST on that proposal, the proposal, if enacted, instead has no effect on that particular citizen’s floor.”

Brendan: he/him

10-10-2021 17:55:25 UTC

Fair point, Zack, I’ve updated the wording per your suggestion.

redtara: they/them

10-10-2021 18:03:53 UTC

If a proposal would cause a Citizen to be Endangered or moved to the infirmary, which is very possible if either of these proposal passes (https://blognomic.com/archive/danger_and_harm https://blognomic.com/archive/punks_dont_follow_rules), then they can opt out of experiencing those effects on this wording. At least if I’m reading it right.

Zack: he/him

10-10-2021 20:14:43 UTC

I like the idea of this but Tara has a point, I’m on the fence

Kevan: Drone he/him

10-10-2021 20:42:21 UTC

I tap the “Proposals are discouraged from referencing Goals directly” sign.

TyGuy6:

10-10-2021 22:58:19 UTC

against

Raven1207: he/him

10-10-2021 23:43:09 UTC

against

redtara: they/them

11-10-2021 00:32:40 UTC

against Well I was hoping the proposal would be amended in time but I’ll have to vote against on this basis, although I almost wish it would pass because it seems fun to exploit.

Zack: he/him

11-10-2021 00:42:24 UTC

against

Brendan: he/him

11-10-2021 01:16:50 UTC

Kevan, are you saying that my commentary box text was inappropriate? I understood the sign in question to mean things along the lines of “don’t write a proposal that says ‘give everyone their current Goal.’”

Cuddlebeam:

11-10-2021 06:33:31 UTC

against

Kevan: Drone he/him

11-10-2021 11:02:34 UTC

It’s a second-order sign tap: a proposal to enact a rule that references the contents of Goals directly will still (as this one does) create timing issues. The commentary text is fine.

against

Brendan: he/him

11-10-2021 13:31:55 UTC

against Withdrawn.