Talk:361
From Nomicapolis
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
Proposer's summary Proposed by: chuck 13:04, 21 December 2006 (EST)
Simple rule to prevent bribery. Right now, it only prevents the most blatant riders (e.g. "everyone who voted YES on this proposal will gain 100 points"), but it's still quite possible to introduce graft with multiple rules if you really really want it.
Debate
Add comments Debate on this proposal will close 00:01, 01 January 2007 (EST)
I don't know...maybe it's just me but I read this and it sounds like rule 346 or any other rule that awards points would be invaild due to this. I read your summary and don't think the rule says what you intend it to say. I think something along the way of "A rule may not be narrow in scope as to only effect the out come of its vote" or something like that. Obviously I haven't put as much thought into it as you, but I think it needs to be reworded. --Dayd 21:41, 21 December 2006 (EST)
All right, it's very simple after this edit. The fact that it's only the self-reference case should be obvious now. I realized I didn't need to say anything about all the various types of votes, because if a proposal punished "no" voters or even non-voters, that would still be preferential treatment to the "yes" voters. chuck 00:29, 22 December 2006 (EST)
Wouldn't the rule prohibiting retrospective effects prohibit the awarding of points for an action in the past? "...to players who voted FOR..." Seems dubious. But correct me if I'm wrong. Finisterre 09:42, 27 December 2006 (EST)
You've still got a little wording problem. A "proposal" can't do anything until it passes, at which point it is no longer a proposal. Perhaps replace the word "give" with "promise"? Per Dayd's point, lower numbered rules take precedence. As for Fin's point, the rule you're talking about is 107. It simply prohibits a rules "effect" from occurring prior to its passage. It says nothing about basing those effects on prior occurrances. So the points (or whatever inducement) would be awarded after the rule is proposed, so 107 is satisfied. Applejuicefool 09:15, 27 December 2006 (EST)
Bah. I can't come up with a decent wording anymore, but more than that, I can't really come up with a justification for it. So I'll just shove this one to voting if I have to, or I'll just let it sit til I know one way or the other what I can do with it. Besides, bribery is more interesting. Just to make things fun in the meantime, let's discuss whether the current wording would create a paradox. chuck 17:33, 27 December 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
Abstain
