[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>5124 AGAINST

What's the problem with proper disinterest?  Having the penalty apply
to disinterested proposals provides a perverse incentive for people
to vote on disinterested proposals contrary to their actual opinion of
the proposal.  That's what disinterest is meant to avoid.

>5130 AGAINST

Yay, sanity.  I was getting worried about this one, on the voting so far.
I keep having thoughts that voting FOR a really destructive proposal,
such as (arguably) this or the repeal-all-the-rules proposal a while ago,
ought to be punishable as treason.  But that would be undemocratic.

>5133 FOR (may as well repeal Rule 103, then; what about Rule 402?)

Heh.  Even without this proposal, we certainly don't need there to always
be a speaker.  It's just not a critical position any more.  So I'd be up
for repealing rule 103.  But not 402 (and thus the office altogether):
I'd like to legislate the speaker as a (non-executive) head of state,
with a symbolic role in foreign relations.  The overall process resembles
the way kings in many countries have lost their actual power and become
figureheads with a great historical flavour.  Proto soon.

>5136 FOR (preserves game custom that actions are possible unless
>       stated as impossible, and [Peekee notwithstanding] permissible
>       unless stated as impermissible)

I'm surprised by the virulence of the anti-MMI faction.  The
arguments for the rules to remain unclear remind me of some of the
anti-industrialisation protests of the 19th century, or the King James
Only movement in Christian theology.

>5137 FOR

I'm even more surprised that the anti-MMI voters object to greater
explication in an already-MMIed rule.

>5138 FOR

After I submitted this, I recalled (to my embarrassment) that some
months ago I described "Support Democracy" as a temporary provision.
It's only there to stop ladder scams.  But we haven't done much about
ladder scams since then, and on reflection "Support Democracy" *is*
a more democratic version of the pre-existing veto.  Roll on the day
when we don't need *any* veto provision.

-zefram

Reply via email to