On Sat, 2016-10-22 at 12:10 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Other note: A fair thing to do would be to hold an election. But
> election for ADoP is resolved by ADoP - a problem! We actually
> used to have "separation of powers" for this, something that read:
>
> "In the case that the election is for the office of ADoP, the
> vote collector is instead [other officer]".
>
> Probably should bring that back!
We also used to have pairs of offices that couldn't be held
simultaneously by the same person. Currently we have one such pair,
Prime Minister and Speaker (these are described as "incompatible" in
rule 103 which is not defined in the ruleset, but the very next
sentence gives a mechanism via which the exclusion can occur).
I think it might make sense to have a general incompatible-office
mechanism. Here are the pairs I'd suggest:
{{{
- Prime Minister, Speaker
This is currently the case, and is presumably designed to prevent the
Speaker gaining too much power.
- Promotor, Assessor
This was in the ruleset for absolutely ages, presumably to prevent one
player gaining control over the proposal system (maybe for timing
scams).
- Promotor, ADoP
To prevent one player having too much control over the ability to pend
proposals. (This came up a little earlier.)
- Referee, Arbitor
The Arbitor is meant to keep tabs on the Referee. This is impossible if
they're the same player.
}}}
This kind-of implies it should be the Promotor who resolves an ADoP
election, except that that doesn't really make logical sense. Perhaps
it should be resolved by the Assessor (who's already used to resolving
elections), or by the Prime Minister (at least in the UK, it's the
Prime Minister who's responsible for assigning people to official
positions in the government). It shouldn't be the Speaker, because that
seems to reduce our options for ADoP for no good reason.
--
ais523
