On Oct 30, 2016, at 5:39 PM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thank you! Now let's make sure this doesn't happen again.
>
> I hereby create the following proposal:
>
> Title: Promotorial Power
> AI: 1
> Author: Aris
> {
> If the proposal "Make Spending Power More Useful" has passed: {
>
> Amend rule 2445 by adding "The above notwithstanding, the Promoter CAN, by
> anouncement, cause a proposal to become pending without counting against eir
> weekly limit, if all of the following are true:
>
> (a) The Promotor is not the author of the proposal;
>
> (b) The proposal has not been pended since the last time it was added to the
> proposal pool; and
>
> (c) The Promotor clearly announces that e is using this method in the same
> message e pends the proposal in.
>
> The Promotor SHOULD NOT use the above method in any manner that could be
> construed as a scam or abuse of the rules. " as a new paragraph at the end of
> the rule.}}
1. By what phrase should the Promotor announce that e is using this method?
2. Is the intent of this proposal to unshackle the Promotor to pend any number
of fresh proposals other than eir own?
3. I’m not confident in the phrasing “eir weekly limit.” The preceding
paragraph reads:
> A player can flip a proposal's imminence to "pending" by
> announcement, unless e has already done so a number of times
> that week that equals or exceeds the total spending power of the
> offices e holds.
What about something like “The above notwithstanding, the Promotor CAN, by
announcement, cause a proposal to become pending, even e has already done so a
number of times that week that equals or exceeds the total spending power of
the offices e holds, if all of the following are true”? It’s clunky (and about
three lines longer, once properly formatted) but it directly addresses the
specific limit it lifts, rather than introducing a new phrase that could apply
to any weekly limit.
-o
