On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 23:41 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 15:32 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document: {{There
> > is no proposal with the title "Throw off Your
> > Chains", and any entity which would otherwise be such a proposal is
> > not a proposal.}}
>
> Could you give more information on why this is necessary / what issues
> it's trying to fix? In particular, do you consider this to currently be
> a true statement or a false statement?
>
> I see RWO of something other than a report as an emergency measure
> that's only to be used if it's the only way to fix brokenness, or if
> it's the least damaging way to fix brokenness. The ability to outright
> revise reality is a fairly powerful one that I don't really like to
> mess with unless necessary (even if it's fairly clear how the gamestate
> would change to cause this to become true).
Actually, I changed my mind with respect to that last parenthetical:
I'm not sure what the "path of least resistance" here actually is. As
far as I can tell, none of the rules limit the Proposal Pool to
containing only proposals (it's just that they only give mechanisms to
put things in there, and remove things from there, if they're
proposals). So is the path of least resistance to prevent the proposal
from having been submitted, or to cause the document currently in the
proposal pool to cease to be a proposal?
--
ais523
