Wednesday, September 15, 2021

Proposal: The Counter-Extremism Response Bill of Clatoc 8 Fallow 52

Timed out 1 vote to 4. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 17 Sep 2021 13:25:36 UTC

Add the following as a sub-rule to the rule Communications, called Executive Power:

The Ministry of Information may freely edit the text of the rule Censorship Terms as they see fit, within the following constraints:

* Any edit so made may only amend the process or criteria by which Messages are Censored;
* Any edit so made must be interpreted as plain-text; any edit that includes wiki formatting (other than the use of asterisks to denote bullet points) is illegal and may be reverted by any Cell;
* Any edit so made may not have the effect of indirectly or directly amending any other part of the ruleset; any edit that creates the possibility of directly or indirectly editing other parts of the ruleset is illegal and may be reverted by any Cell, as are any subsequent edits that rely on such an edit for their legitimacy;
* Any time the rule Censorship Terms is so edited, a Notice must be made notifying Cells of the fact.

This rule may only be edited or repealed through the successful application of a Proposal or CfJ, or as the result of the posting of an Ascension Address.

If a majority of the EVCs on this proposal that show FOR votes name a specific Building, increase the Progress Amount of that Building by 10% of its total Progress Requirement, rounded up.

Remove the following text from the ruleset:

As a Cyclical Action, the Ministry of Information may Issue a Notice, which is an atomic action with the following steps:

* Make a post to the Blog detailing a single addition that will be made to the list of Censorship Terms;
* Add the specified new Censorship Term to the list of Censorship Terms in this rule.

Rewrite the sentence “No Censorship Term may apply to any Communication created before the Notice that established it was posted” to read “No provision of this rule may apply to any Communication that was created before that provision of this rule was added to the Ruleset”.

Comments

Madrid:

15-09-2021 13:33:08 UTC

Im really worried about text injection with ‘freely edit’.

Also, this should really be a Notice, because stealth changes to the Censorship Terms would be really annoying.

Other than that, I’m fine with it.

Josh: Observer he/they

15-09-2021 13:35:32 UTC

I concurrently added a requirement to notify.

Madrid:

15-09-2021 13:38:23 UTC

Oh you. You know I mean Notice, not notify.

“No Censorship Term may apply to any Communication created before the Notice that established it was posted.”

I don’t want to have to be awake at odd hours.

Josh: Observer he/they

15-09-2021 13:45:39 UTC

You got me.

Put the Notice keyword in.

Madrid:

15-09-2021 13:49:47 UTC

That notice didn’t establish the new terms though, these special powers would have, and the Notice just lets people know about it.

“No Censorship Term may apply to any Communication created before the Notice that established it was posted.”

Kevan: he/him

15-09-2021 15:55:17 UTC

Any free text injection of ruletext is always going to be doomed, I think, no matter what clever semantic padlocks we put on the box.

The “indirectly or directly amending any other part of the ruleset” can be gotten around by just amending Censorship Terms to say “Josh can edit this rule at will with impunity now, and this takes precedence over Executive Power” without modifying Executive Power, can’t it? And then editing it again to modify Executive Power, since it takes precedence over it.

Josh: Observer he/they

15-09-2021 16:00:21 UTC

It’s true that the rule can’t be worded in a way that 100% prevents abuse; the question then becomes whether we want to play in this space at all, and if so whether there is a subset of players that we trust with “it’s okay, I’ll stay within the spirit of the rule” in order to do so.

Kevan: he/him

15-09-2021 16:41:17 UTC

I think there’s other ways to achieve the spirit. If you’re expanding censorship reactively in a “no, stop doing that” kind of way you’d probably get a quorum of support for just proposing it. It perhaps just needs a “censorship amendments from the Ministry can be enacted out of queue order; while any are pending Communications cannot be processed” type rule to stop people from immediately sending the type of message you’re trying to stop.

Brendan: he/him

15-09-2021 19:55:53 UTC

against

Kevan: he/him

15-09-2021 21:59:51 UTC

against

Darknight: he/him

16-09-2021 13:27:17 UTC

against

Clucky: he/him

17-09-2021 01:34:55 UTC

against