BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

What if “We are all City Architects now” failed but “Infernal Desire Machines” passed?

The rule this proposes to modify wouldn’t exist, so it would presumably have no effect.

The “Infernal Desire Machines” Proposal has no effect if “We are all City Architects now” is not enacted, as currently written

I believe Taiga does have a point. Might be better to edit the proposal to ‘If a rule called Architected Cities exists at the time of the enactment of this proposal, add a subrule called Population to this rule ...’ just to err on the side of caution

Fixed

I’m still not convinced. I think there should be a clause to the effect of this happening only if the rule exists at the time of enactment.

Consider the situation where ‘we are all city architects now’ is not enacted but the other 2 are and so these are all forgotten about. Suppose there is a variable later in the game called Growth. Next someone makes a proposal creating a rule called Architected Cities. Which is enacted. Then wouldn’t this proposal mean that the Growth now defaults to 1 and any progress players have made on their Growth is lost because of this proposal?

Kind of far fetched, but isn’t that how scams are made?

No, that’s not how it would work. Let’s examine your scenario:

1)  “We are all City Architects now” is not enacted. At this point, there are no dynastic rules

2) “Infernal Desire Machines” is enacted, but because the proposal was written to say “If Proposal: We are all City Architects now was not enacted then this proposal has no effect.”, then it has no effect. There are still no dynastic rules.

3) “Time to Settle Down” is enacted, but because there are still no dynastic rules, “If the rule “Architected Cities” exists” is not true, so nothing else happens. There are still no dynastic rules.

Yeah and so far so good. But if a rule named Architected Cities is created later possibly because of some other proposal, won’t we have to apply the effects of this proposal too, since they wouldn’t have been applied by that time? Or am I misunderstanding the rules?

That’s covered under “Rules and Votable Matters” in the ruleset:
“If the Admin enacting a Votable Matter reaches a step which cannot be applied immediately (e.g. “two days after this Votable Matter enacts, Engineer A gains 1 point”), that step is ignored for the purposes of enactment. Once a Votable Matter has been enacted, it can have no further direct effect on the gamestate.”

Basically once a proposal has done its thing, you never need to worry about its effects cropping up again later (unless it explicitly makes a rule that does something later of course, or a later proposal says that the effects of an earlier proposal is repeated).

are* repeated

The daily grind aspect of this might be a bit much…  but I’ll propose slowing it down or storing growth

[SingularByte] Thank you. That does make sense

from me.