Wednesday, January 27, 2021

Protosal: Veto Conditions

Brendan has threatened to deadlock the Universal part of the dynasty over Veto conditions. I think it would be more productive and on-theme to negotiate than to merely threaten. And that requires the veto conditions to all be explicitly spelled out.

This is the starting point, after input from Clucky. The Player should Veto any Treaty change that attempts to:
* add or remove Signatories from another Treaty, except as mediated by Universal rules
* Restrict the actions of non-Signatories, beyond not being able to act as Signatories
* avoid the requirement that the Player always be a Signatory
* Make substantial modifications to another Treaty, such that it effectively becomes a different Treaty. Trivial modifications are now permitted. (thanks, Clucky)
* Enable arbitrary rules modifications, as that would indirectly allow it to mess with Signatories.
* Prevent the Player from vetoing proposed treaties that violate any of these bullet points

In each case where “another Treaty” appears in those requirements, parent rules are nonetheless permitted to mess with their subrules.

The following workarounds are expressly permitted:
* Treaties may have terms specific to mutual Signatories with other Treaties, for example by modifying variables defined in the other Treaty.
* Treaties may declare the Player and other Signatories as second-class Signatories who may not take certain actions.

Comments

Bucky:

27-01-2021 18:40:16 UTC

On the fence about:
* Would promptly cause an Emperor to achieve victory upon enactment

Brendan: he/him

27-01-2021 20:16:11 UTC

I think this is a useful starting point, but my broader issue is with the Player as sole determinant of what tenets might, hypothetically, in an edge case, violate a constraint, leading directly to “oh gosh, I have no choice but to veto, because the rule I wrote says so! my hands are tied! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”

I’d be interested in something like this explicit list of veto conditions if they were specified as causes for the Player should veto—if and only if another Emperor calls out a tenet violation in the comments of that proposal, and requests intervention.

Bucky:

27-01-2021 23:17:15 UTC

For the most part, then, I should adopt the policy of voting against and voicing my concerns first, then vetoing only after further discussion.

Darknight: he/him

28-01-2021 02:29:37 UTC

What did I walk into?

Bucky:

28-01-2021 02:37:55 UTC

A controversy centered on the fact that I’m using vetoes way more frequently than is typical for modern Blognomic.

Darknight: he/him

28-01-2021 06:42:12 UTC

Aka, more then none lol. I don’t even remember the last time I saw a veto used, let alone as many as you dropped.

Bucky:

28-01-2021 17:18:33 UTC

Last dynasty, about two weeks before the end: https://blognomic.com/archive/ending

Darknight: he/him

28-01-2021 19:00:26 UTC

Ah, must have been lost during that