coppro wrote: >> 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.
I interpreted it as intentionally allowing lower-power rules to impose limits that it would not violate. >> 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 I assume you meant 1586. I interpreted it as intentionally using 1586 to keep the current instances where they are, but I understand the problem you have in mind (the new 2255 would attempt to define "cards" via 754(2)(b) and thus potentially clash with 2253's definition); it might be easier to repeal 2253 etc., then amend 2255, then re-create instances based on where they were before 2253 etc. were repealed. >> 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. It would be easy to adopt e.g. HATE as shorthand for "if the proposal would pass if all HATE votes were resolved as AGAINST and fail quorum if all HATE votes were resolved as no-vote, then no-vote, otherwise AGAINST" but it would probably be countered by amending quorum to include conditional votes resolving to no-vote. > Also, I think I'll tackle judicial reform this week. That section of > the rules is a mess. What do you have in mind? I may as well get a head start pondering possible code revisions.
