On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > Proto: new system > [Keeps major arcana, puts in basic fee-based system] > > Create the following rule, Energy, power-2: > > Ergs are a class of fixed assets and a measure of each Player's > energy; to increase or decrease an entity's energy is to change > the number of ergs in eir possession. Ownership of Ergs is > restricted to players. > > At the beginning of each week: > (a) All the ergs in existence are destroyed; then > (b) P ergs are created in the possession of each player, where > P for a player equals 4 plus the interest index of each
...4 plus the sum of the interest indices... > office that e holds. > > The Power Station Manager (PSM) is a high-priority office and the We don't have high-priority offices any more. If memory serves, we told you this last time you proposed a major change. > recordkeepor of ergs. > > > Create the following rule, Fees, power-2: > If the Rules associate a non-negative cost, price, charge, or > fee with an action, that action is a fee-based action. If the > specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next > highest integer. > > To perform a fee-based action, a Player (the Actor) who is > otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e > is performing the action and announce that there is a fee for > that action. Upon said announcement, the action is performed, > the Actor's energy is decreased by the fee (in ergs). > > Any Player (hereafter the challenger) CAN announce that the > Actor possessed insufficient energy (ergs) to perform the > action, provided e issues eir challenge within 7 days of the > attempted action. > > As soon as possible after such a challenge, the PSM SHALL > confirm or deny whether the Actor possessed ergs equal to or > greater than the fee at the time e attempted the action. If the > Actor in fact possessed insufficient energy or the energy of the > Actor cannot be determined by reasonable effort, the action > shall be deemed to have not occurred and the energy of the Actor > shall be deemed to have not been changed by the fee. > > If a Player issues a challenge as above, but more than 7 days > have passed since the attempted action, then the action shall be > permitted to stand. As soon as possible after a late challenge > is issued, the PSM SHALL confirm or deny its correctness. In > this case the action is considered to have destroyed all ergs > in the Player's possession at the time. > > > Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions, power-2: > > - A player CAN increase eir voting limit on a specified > decision to adopt a proposal in its voting period by 2Q, by > paying a fee of Q, provided this does not increase eir > voting limit above any maximum limit defined elsewhere. This would mean that if a power-1 rule said that the maximum voting limit was 1, players would not be able to increase their limits above 1. Just have this clause defer to other rules regarding voting limits. > - A player CAN make a proposal Distributable for a fee of 1 erg. > > - A player CAN make a proposal Undistributable for a fee of 2 ergs. > > - A player CAN make an ongoing Ordinary decision Democratic for a > fee of 3 ergs. I think this should be higher, given that Support Democracy is still around. > - A player CAN initiate an election for a specified Office for a > fee of 3 ergs. > > - A player CAN change the chamber of an ongoing ordinary decision > for a fee of 2 ergs. > > - A player CAN veto or rubberstamp an ongoing ordinary decision for > a fee of 4 ergs. I dislike both of these for reasons I'll explain below. > > Upon the adoption of this proposal, 6 ergs are created in the possession > of each player. > > Amend Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions) by replacing its last > paragraph with: > The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are the players who > were active at the start of its voting period. The voting limit > of a player on an ordinary decision is eir base voting limit on > that decision (as defined elsewhere in the rules), minus one for > each positive multiple of two Rests the player owns. This rule > defers to other rules of equal power in the determination of voting > limits. > > Amend Rule 2255 (Major Arcana) to read: > > Each of the items listed in this rule by a title and position is > an asset, each one an individual asset tracked by the Herald. > Collectively these assets are known as Cards. Repeal Cards before enacting this rule, or you may get in the way of Rule 1596 > Cards CANNOT be destroyed except as described in this Rule, nor > CAN more than a single instance of each particular card come > into existence, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. > If a CFJ determines that the possessor of the instance can't be > determined by reasonable effort, then that Herald 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. > > If the holder of a particular card is a Player, the holder of that > card is considered to be the holder of its listed position, and > have the powers and duties described by the Rules for that > position. > > Title: Minister without Portfolio. > Position: The Minister without Portfolio CAN become holder of a > specified vacant elected office by announcement, unless e is > prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis. I'd like to see some new prerogatives. This prerogative is nearly useless, for instance, as Wooble pointed out. (note that it makes the office Postulated, but experience has shown this to rarely be a concern) > Title: Majority Leader. > Position: The Majority Leader CAN veto a specified ordinary > decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases > its Adoption Index by 1 and makes it Democratic. I think that AI and democracy should be separated from one another, now that we can have high-AI ordinary proposals. Veto should probably be reduced to only increasing the AI. > Title: Cabinet Secretary. > Position: the Cabinet Secretary CAN rubberstamp an ordinary, > non-filibustered decision in its voting period by indicating the > decision; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the contrary > notwithstanding. Quorum has, in all my play, never once been used for actual vote manipulation. I think we should remove this prerogative and the associated fee spending. > Title: Chief Whip. > Position: The Chief Whip's voting limit on an Ordinary > proposal is 1.5 times what it would otherwise be. > > Title: Justiciar. > Position: The Justiciar may be granted particular abilities or > privileges associated with the judicial process as described > elsewhere in the Rules. > > Title: Admiral of the Navy. > Position: The Admiral of the Navy CAN begin a coup by > announcing the ceremonial shelling of the palace. The effects > of the coup (if any) are as described elsewhere in the rules. These three prerogatives are all prerogatives that I think we should keep. Other ideas: - Extra ergs - Free proposals - The ability to take actions out of time (distribute eir own proposals? assign emself as judge?) - A Leadership Token per quarter? Also, you should probably update Leadership Tokens; making each token worth a sizable number of ergs would be appropriate, I think. You could leave in the win if you so chose. > Repeal Rule 2256 (Exploit Cards) > Repeal Rule 2266 (Effect Cards) > Repeal Rule 2257 (Dealing Cards) > Repeal Rule 2258 (Decks, Draws, and Salaries) > Repeal Rule 2278 (Earning Draws) > Repeal Rule 2259 (Hand Limits) > Repeal Rule 2260 (The Deck of Government) > Repeal Rule 2261 (The Deck of Change) > Repeal Rule 2262 (The Deck of Justice) > Repeal Rule 2253 (Cards) > Repeal Rule 2254 (Position Cards) Good riddance. Also, I think I'll tackle judicial reform this week. That section of the rules is a mess. -coppro
