Thursday, July 29, 2010

Proposal: Rank has privelages too

Quorumed at 17-3. Enacted. - lilomar

Adminned at 30 Jul 2010 07:50:09 UTC

In the Rule entitled “Information Clearance”, change the text

For the purposes of any given dynastic Rule, no Citizen with a Clearance Level higher than the Clearance Level of that Rule is a Citizen.

to

For the purposes of any given dynastic Rule, any Citizen with a Clearance Level higher than the Clearance Level of that Rule is an Officer but not a Citizen.

 

Comments

Qwazukee:

29-07-2010 02:07:47 UTC

imperial

flurie:

29-07-2010 02:25:17 UTC

imperial

Is this necessary?

Darknight: he/him

29-07-2010 02:58:27 UTC

imperial

h2g2guy:

29-07-2010 04:15:49 UTC

for

I think it’s useful, if not necessary.  This allows later rules to easily appoint any Citizen exempt from the rule as an Enforcer of the rule.

We need to ensure that the rules can’t force an Officer to do something, though, as this would defeat the whole clearance system set out.  I have an idea for a fix…but it’s too late.  I’ll let it simmer in my brain overnight, and post it tomorrow.

glopso:

29-07-2010 04:56:24 UTC

for  against  for  against  for  against  for  against  for  against  for

Put:

29-07-2010 06:11:31 UTC

for

90000:

29-07-2010 07:02:16 UTC

an enthusiastic for

Purplebeard:

29-07-2010 08:17:53 UTC

This is TREASON of the highest order. Still,  for

Kevan: he/him

29-07-2010 08:37:25 UTC

for

Keba:

29-07-2010 11:24:01 UTC

for but waiting for a fix.

scshunt:

29-07-2010 12:34:01 UTC

for

lilomar:

29-07-2010 12:47:19 UTC

imperial I would still like to have lower rules not apply to higher citizens, but the people have spoken…

Kevan: he/him

29-07-2010 12:49:28 UTC

[lilomar] Oh, I think that’s worth keeping, but it looks like there may be some need for exceptions. We could maybe say that if a proposed rule would make a subjectively “bad” thing happen to an Officer, the High-Programmer could veto it. Higher-ranking Officers only get to enforce things, or benefit from them.

Kyre:

29-07-2010 13:51:49 UTC

against

Qwazukee:

29-07-2010 13:54:27 UTC

CoV against

Rodney:

29-07-2010 17:08:16 UTC

for Only a TREASONOUS COMMIE would write a rule that would unfairly apply upwards.

spikebrennan:

29-07-2010 17:15:15 UTC

for

lilomar:

29-07-2010 20:15:29 UTC

Hm,  for per kevan, and with the understanding that I will probably veto any rule that will hurt “officers”. (unless it is very entertaining…)

ais523:

29-07-2010 21:05:42 UTC

for

Galdyn:

29-07-2010 22:39:10 UTC

for

Princerepulsive:

30-07-2010 01:08:07 UTC

against

dbdougla:

30-07-2010 01:21:19 UTC

for