Sunday, January 24, 2021

Proposal: Sovereignty for All

Reached quorum 8 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 25 Jan 2021 16:52:12 UTC

Add a new Dynastic rule to the ruleset. Call it “Treaties [Universal]” and give it the following text:

Rules with [Universal] in their name are Universal. All non-Universal Dynastic rules are Treaties.

Each Treaty has a list of Emperors as Signatories, tracked as a list of Emperor names at the end of the rule; this list is automatically appended when the Treaty is created, replacing any such list in the Treaty’s initial text. Treaties only bind their Signatories; an Emperor who is not a Signatory to a Treaty is not required to follow its provisions, and generally cannot take actions defined by that Treaty unless it explicitly states otherwise.

When a Proposal creates or modifies a Treaty, every Emperor that voted FOR it becomes a Signatory to that Treaty; for this purpose, a DEFERENTIAL vote is never a FOR vote. Signatories to a subrule become Signatories to the parent rule. The Player is considered to be a Signatory to every Treaty. 

The Player should veto any proposal that would make an Emperor a Signatory to a Treaty against his will, or that would convert a Treaty into a Universal rule without the assent of all non-Signatory Emperors. Moreover, a Proposal that creates or modifies a Universal rule is not Popular while it has any AGAINST votes.

Comments

Raven1207: he/they

24-01-2021 22:56:18 UTC

for

Coderblaze:

24-01-2021 23:06:10 UTC

Well this looks interesting.

Brendan: he/him

24-01-2021 23:50:13 UTC

for Thanks, I hate it.

Coderblaze:

25-01-2021 00:09:25 UTC

for

Coderblaze:

25-01-2021 00:09:52 UTC

@Brendan: Maybe elaborate a bit on that?

Darknight: he/him

25-01-2021 01:36:53 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

25-01-2021 06:41:24 UTC

I hesitantly unidle for

Clucky: he/him

25-01-2021 07:06:06 UTC

So I tried to fix some of my concerns here: https://blognomic.com/archive/late_to_the_party#comments

But I have more concerns around this part: When a Proposal creates *or modifies a Treaty*

In theory, a treaty that you’ve signed could be modified against your will. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I’m not sure.


I also am a bit uneasy about this part: Moreover, a Proposal that creates or modifies a Universal rule is not Popular while it has any AGAINST votes.

Because it breaks a fundamental part of what makes a proposal “popular”. The idea if a popular proposal is that unless someone changes their vote, new votes won’t change anything. Meaning proposals can past fast, because even if you didn’t like a proposal your vote wasn’t gonna change anything. But here, your against vote *could* change things. Do we want to consider bumping the timeframe for popular proposals up to 24 hours in order to give people more time to kill something? Also if the spirit of the rules is “only changes everyone is happy with happen. If you’re not happy with the changes you can either kill the rule or force them to make it a treaty that doesn’t effect you” then shouldn’t we also include a rule that if I’m a signatory of treaty X, and someone makes a proposal that modifies treaty X, I can kill it with my against vote?

Bucky:

25-01-2021 07:52:46 UTC

The one constant of Blognomic is that an Emperor can veto. AGAINST votes on Universal proposals replicate that, except that they can be changed.

In that light, passing a Universal proposal before someone has a chance to vote against is analogous to doing so before I have a chance to veto.

Clucky: he/him

25-01-2021 08:39:35 UTC

True, but I think the concern is that you don’t generally have a strategic reason to veto stuff. Could become more worrisome when people have strategic reasons to try and kill proposals.

Is the fact that you can pass a treaty, then have the treaty chance to a rule you dislike but you are stuck signed to the same treaty a bug or a feature?

Kevan: he/him

25-01-2021 09:32:14 UTC

for

Josh: Observer he/they

25-01-2021 10:18:21 UTC

for

Bucky:

25-01-2021 16:31:55 UTC

@Clucky - it’s a feature for now. We might later implement a way to leave a treaty in response to a change you voted against.