Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
And what reason was that, then?
Having a default officeholder makes officeholding indeterminate when
we're not sure who the default officeholder is. It spreads uncertainty
regarding the game state. We ran into this recently regarding the CotC,
when resolving CFJ 1684a, where we couldn't be sure who was speaker.
And, of course, we don't need offices to be filled immediately. We can
install a new officer in a mere four days if there's no disagreement, and
if an office remains vacant for long then we can deputise quite easily.
If there's disagreement but no uncertainty, then the default
officeholder gets to pull an extra Green VC or two. If there
is uncertainty, then deputisation gets around that as well; VC
awards/penalties remain uncertain, but that's an argument for
the long-overdue Plato-Pragmatisation of VCs.
Increased VLOP is a prerogative power. Discuss.
It's not a prerogative power in the executive sense. One has increased
VLOP not due to holding an exclusive position of authority but due to
game actions that are open to everyone simultaneously. Variable VLOP
*is* undemocratic, but the scope of its effect is restricted, so the
important matters are properly democratic.
Winning the game is also open to everyone simultaneously, and the
scope of two out of these four prerogatives is restricted in the
same way that variable VLOP is.
