[s-b] Proposal (was: [s-d] My votes (finally!))

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

I submit the following proposal, entitled "Democratic Diplomacy":

{{
Amend Rule 2-10 by appending the following text at the end:

{{{
A passed proposal can create an obligation for the Ministry of Foreign
Relations to take some specific action in a foreign nomic or to relay
a message from B Nomic to the foreign nomic.

The Ambassador must fulfill any such existing obligations as soon as possible.
}}}

}}

On Nov 14, 2007 3:04 PM, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It's possible for a proposal to order someone to take an action, but
> it's impossible for a proposal to *force* someone to take an action,
> any more than a proposal to stop the sun would force the sun to stop.
>
> A proposal can request that a player take an action, and can offer in-
> game incentive (i.e. giving/taking points), but by itself a proposal
> that just says "Player X will do Y" is meaningless.
>
> One could even argue that it's not a proposal, since by definition a
> proposal is a list of changes *to the gamestate* and, for example,
> the Agoran forums are not part of our gamestate.
>
> --
> Wonko
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>
> > I don't think it's necessary to use a self-repealing rule; it should
> > in principle be possible for a passed proposal to order someone to
> > take an action.
> >
> > I'm on the fence about whether p177 should be interpreted to create an
> > obligation.  Not only could the wording itself be a problem, but
> > there's also the issue that proposals take effect at an instant when,
> > IMO, all offices are vacant.  There is no Ambassador at the instant
> > the proposal's effects happen, so ordering the Ambassador to do
> > something might be impossible.
> >
> > Of course, we could use common sense and make the incoming Ambassador
> > take any actions demanded of the office while it was vacant, but it's
> > probably best for such a mechanism to be explicit.
> >
> > On Nov 14, 2007 11:44 AM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Nov 14, 2007 11:29 AM, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 177: Proper Notification (Hose)
> >>> Against. Proposals that use "shall" like this have no effect.
> >>
> >> Are you saying that since it doesn't change any game state, the net
> >> result of this passing would be nothing? I guess the correct way
> >> would
> >> have been to create a rule that self-repealed after doing what was
> >> intended? But then again, I don't think there is anything preventing
> >> the Ambassador from doing it anyway.
> >>
> >> - Hose
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> spoon-discuss mailing list
> >> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> >> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Geoffrey Spear
> > http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-discuss mailing list
> > spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>



-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business