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

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

I assign this Proposal the Proposal Number 180.

Billy Pilgrim

On Nov 14, 2007 3:15 PM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business