Thursday, January 24, 2013

Proposal: Speaker’s Corner

Quorum at 8-3 and is enacted. -scshunt

Adminned at 24 Jan 2013 14:58:35 UTC

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled Credibility:

Each Honourable Member has a score called Credibility, which is tracked in the GNDT, can be any whole number between 0 and 200, and defaults to 200.

Add a new rule to the ruleset, entitled Commitments:

Any statement that an Honourable Member makes - whether as part of the game or outside of it, including via private communication, or in a context completely divorced from BlogNomic - from the enactment of this proposal onwards is said to be a Commitment.

If an Honourable Member can prove that another Honourable Member has made Commitments that contradict each other, or that another Honourable Member has made Commitments that render one or more of their extant Commitments impossible to fulfil, then they may make a story post with a title that begins with the words “TABLOID HEADLINE:” and a body text that details the nature of the Commitments that have (or must inevitably be) broken, along with proof that those Commitments were made by the targeted Honourable Member. They may then immediately reduce the Credibility of the targeted Honourable Member by 3.

posted by Josh at 24 Jan 2013 09:36:34 UTC Comments (15)

Comments

Kevan: Concierge he/him

24-01-2013 11:34:47 UTC

Fun that this would allow careless social media posts to create a controversy, but being able to “prove” something like this is very subjective. The Speaker should probably have to agree.

for

RaichuKFM: she/her

24-01-2013 12:30:52 UTC

Worried about what counts as proof.  against

nqeron:

24-01-2013 12:40:38 UTC

for

Skju:

24-01-2013 14:38:50 UTC

for
Though I would set default credibility to 100 or 150 so that there’s room to gain some.

Josh: he/they

24-01-2013 14:42:48 UTC

Gaining popularity from an initial high? I’m afraid that’s not really how politics works.

scshunt:

24-01-2013 18:08:27 UTC

for

quirck: he/him

24-01-2013 18:53:58 UTC

for

Klisz:

24-01-2013 19:16:09 UTC

against I don’t want to have to worry about BlogNomic when doing things outside the game.

Clucky: he/him

24-01-2013 19:46:29 UTC

against per Klisz. I can’t see the “in a context completely divorced from BlogNomic” clause helping at all. It probably won’t hurt either, but I’d rather not take that risk. Just opens up too much of a can of worms.

Not to mention, even if this were confined to blognomic statements, there is nothing stopping me from spamming tabloid headlines and reducing your Credibility to 0. If I “can prove that another Honourable Member has made Commitments that contradict each other” once,  then I can make the same proof 65 more times.

Josh: he/they

24-01-2013 19:59:16 UTC

A bigger problem, but also really fixable in a single patch that would pass before the problem had a chance to come to pass.

I’ll write the correction proposal, if you like.

Larrytheturtle:

24-01-2013 20:07:12 UTC

for

Clucky: he/him

24-01-2013 22:04:54 UTC

I’m still against the “effect on stuff outside of blognomic” part, and think the fact that ‘proof’ is so nebulous this needs some sort of confirmation by the speaker. Patches are good if there are slight issues that need to be reworked, but here the underlying mechanic is sound, but I think there are too many implementation issues to vote and through and patch it rather than just writing a whole new proposal

Patrick:

24-01-2013 22:36:52 UTC

imperial

Maybe give the speaker the final say?

Patrick:

24-01-2013 22:37:06 UTC

for

Maybe give the speaker the final say?

Patrick:

24-01-2013 22:39:55 UTC

Sorry for the double- er, triple post. My connection is terribly slow and I can never tell if something has posted yet or not, also I agree with Clucky, this will work better if the speaker gets the final say… but I suppose you all already got that.