I've edited out the bits of the proposal I think are unproblematic; here are comments on the other bits.
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 12:20 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > If a card class has a position, there is always exactly one such > instance of the class in existence, and it CANNOT be either > created or destroyed. If, despite this rule, the instance does > not exist, or a CFJ determines that its possession or existence > cannot be determined by reasonable effort, then that card's > dealer SHALL, as soon as possible, destroy any instance of that > card that might exist and create that card in the possession of > an active player who holds the Patent Title Champion, chosen at > random. This possibly doesn't do what you think it does; as far as I can tell, it will give all the prerogatives to the L&FD, until someone can somehow move them. > If a card has a Position, and the holder of the card is a > Player, the holder of that card is considered to be the holder > of that position, and have the powers and duties described by > the Rules for that position. The powers and duties of such a > position CANNOT be delegated or deputized without transferring > the card, and are only performable/required of the holder of the > card, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Inability to deputise? For something that is a SHALL, and therefore deputisable, it really ought to be done; none of the prerogatives are anyway. And I really don't get the rules-to-the-contrary notwithstanding here; what sort of rule are you planning to overrule here? > Title: Minister without Portfolio. > Position: The Minister without Portfolio CAN become holder > of a vacant elected office by indicating the Office, unless e > is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis. You probably want a 'by announcement' here. > Title: Majority Leader. > Position: The Majority Leader CAN veto an ordinary decision in > its voting period by indicating the decision; this increases > its Adoption Index by 1 and makes it Democratic. And you definitely want it here; the current wording implies that the Majority Leader could veto things without anyone else knowing they'd been vetoed. > Title: Cabinet Secretary. > Position: the Cabinet Secretary CAN rubberstamp an ordinary > decision in its voting period by indicating the decision; this > decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the contrary > notwithstanding, except if a proposal is both filibustered and > rubberstamped, in which case its quorum is what it was > originally. Likewise here for the announcements; also, no way that one single player should be able to remove a filibuster on something by emself, that's a massive security bug. > Title: Chief Whip. > Position: The Chief Whips's voting limit on an Ordinary > proposal is 1.5 times what it would otherwise be. You need to modify the Caste rules to defer to this. (Not adding a 'rules to the contrary notwithstanding', that causes problems as coppro has shown this month.) > A card is not an instrument; the instrument that allows the > change described by a card's exploit is the Rule that describes > that exploit, regardless of whether the exploit describes the > agent performing the change as "you", the card, or another > entity. I'd prefer "that causes" rather than "that allows", here; it's a lot clearer. > Whenever the rules indicate that a dealer SHALL deal a card to > an entity, or that the entity "earns a draw" from a particular > deck, that deck's dealer SHALL, as soon as possible, create a > card in the possession of that entity, with the card chosen at > random from among cards in that deck, with the probability of a > particular card being chosen being the frequency of that card > divided by the sum of the frequencies of all the cards in that > deck (if this sum is zero, the requirement to deal asap is > waived, and the dealer SHALL NOT deal a card until the sum is > greater than zero). It's unlikely to come up, but this is buggy if someone's the dealer for two different decks, one of which has no positive-frequency cards and the other of which does. (And shouldn't it be 'dealor'?) > Office Salary is a switch for each office tracked by the > Accountor, with possible values being the names of each basic > deck (default Government). The holder of each OFFICE CAN change > that office's salary by announcement. At the beginning of each > week, each holder of a high-priority office who completed a non- > empty set of duties in the prior week earns a draw from the deck > indicated by the switch. At the beginning of each month, each > holder of a low-priority office who held the office for 16 or > more days in the prior month earns two draws from the deck > indicated by the switch. This should allow for interest index of offices; at the moment, you're giving the trivial offices as much salary as the difficult ones. > Create the following Rule, Basic Hand Limits, AI-2: > > Each first-class player has a Basic Deck Limit (BDL) of 3. > Every other entity has a BDL of 0. > > Each entity's Actual Deck Limit (ADL) for a particular basic > deck is equal to eir BDL times the number of times that deck > appears as part of eir Salary switch. > > As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the > dealer of each basic deck SHALL, by announcement, destroy a > number of cards at random in each entity's hand equal to the > difference between the number of cards of that deck the entity > has and that entity's ADL for that deck. The dealer SHALL NOT > deal any cards to any entity between the beginning of the month > and performing this duty for all entities. Although this works, I don't really like this way of managing hand limits; simply reducing salaries for people with larger hands is likely to be easier to track and less randomly annoying (and also adds more strategy). > * Roll Call - Increase an indicated player's Vote Power on > one indicated Ordinary Proposal except in > last 24 hours of voting period. Vote Power is not defined in the ruleset, and this proto doesn't define it. (It /does/ exist in B's ruleset, doing the same thing as Caste in Agora; possibly you've muddled the nomics. But even with B's definition, this wouldn't do what you think.) > * Debate-o-Matic - Make a Proposal you name Democratic. Are you planning to repeal Support Democracy as well? > * On the Nod - Rubberstamp an indicated Proposal. OK, so now /anyone/ can get around a filibuster, if they're lucky. This would make a mockery of Agora's security system. And it works on democratic proposals too? > * Not Your Turn - cancel a card play that occured in the last > 24 hours; HOWEVER; if this would lead at any > time in the 24 hours after playing to a > paradox which would prevent its play, its > play is unsuccessful. Retroactive effects? At /power 2/? This is far too likely to lead to ridiculously complex CFJs, and quite possibly scams. (Imagine a power-3 proposal passing, and someone performing an action defined in a power-3 rule it created, then retroactively cancelling a card play such that it didn't pass after all.) -- ais523
