[s-d] Re: [auto] EugeneMeidinger submits p24

[pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Cooper Jr.)]

EugeneMeidinger has submitted a new proposal, p24:
> Proposal 24/0: Broken power safegaurds.
> A Standard Proposal by EugeneMeidinger
> Last modified on nweek 86, nday 7
>
> Add a new rule to section 3:
>
> {{
> == Danergous proposals ==
> Any proposal that would directly or indirectly lead to any of the
> following requires two more FOR votes than usual to pass:
>
> Veto power
> Additional votes from one player
> Contracts relating to voting
> }}
> ---------------------------------

While well-intentioned, I'm not sure how this could be easily
enforced. It seems that just about anything could "indirectly lead" to
one of those, and I don't know if I'd want a CFI on every proposal to
see if it might end up leading to one of those.

For an example, if we have any kind of "proxy" objects that players
might have some sort of control over (such as the societies from
before the reset), would giving them the ability to cast votes fall
under one of those categories? It wouldn't be additional votes from a
player, as the votes would be from the objects.

-- 
Peter C.
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
		-- Mark Twain

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