Thanks, that's an interesting history. I suppose this would be an issue easy to fix (by just striking the bullet point), right?
Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 11:57 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > > Hey, another newbie question for you all. > > > > Rule 2481, point 3 reads: "Non-Festive players cannot flip the > > Imminence of any proposal;". However, a simple text search does not > > find the word "Imminence" mentioned anywhere else in the SLR (nor > > does the string "immi"). > > > > Are my text-searching skills failing me, or did this Rule just get > > left behind in a previous update? > > Looks like a left-over rule change, yes. Also a potentially problematic > one (that portion of the rule was intended to prevent invasions of > large numbers of new players forcing through proposals via preventing > the proposals from being distributed, but with "imminence" undefined it > doesn't do anything). > > Imminence used to be a switch that specified whether the Promotor was > allowed to distribute a proposal or not (you could submit proposals > whenever you liked but had to pay for the distribution). The idea was > partly that being able to have your proposals distributed is > politically valuable and thus something that can be used as the basis > of an economy, and partly to encourage people to think before proposing > and to encourage discussion on a proposal before it's voted on. In > practice, we tend to enact and repeal imminence mechanisms based on how > much players are proposing. > > -- > ais523 > >
