What about different mechanisms? I think we have rules where the officer CAN do it by announcement, but everyone else needs CONSENT.
Gaelan > On Jan 29, 2020, at 1:49 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 18:03, Jason Cobb via agora-business < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I submit the following proposal: >> >> Title: Deputisation timeliness >> >> AI: 3 >> >> Author: Jason Cobb >> >> Co-authors: Alexis >> >> { >> >> Amend Rule 2160 to read, in whole: >> >> { >> >> A player acting as emself (the deputy) CAN perform an action ordinarily >> reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office if >> >> 1. the player does not hold that office; >> > > I have two other suggestions after thinking about how to reduce Cyan > Ribbon shenanigans and make it a more interesting thing to obtain that > genuinely requires working the officer's duties. First, make it so that a > player cannot have held the office in the preceding 14 days either; this > gives a space for another player to take the office so that a player cannot > immediately unresign and, more importantly, prevents a player from > resigning an office then immediately deputizing back into it for a Cyan > Ribbon. Suggested wording "The player has not at any point in the last 14 > days held the office." > >> >> 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than >> by deputisation, if e held the office; >> > > Second, make it so that the person must not be already able to perform the > action. Suggested wording: "it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform > the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and, except > where the action is to publish information, would not be possible > otherwise;" > > -Alexis
