On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:33 AM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 21, 2020 11:20:21 AM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Also realize, if you're going the Decision route, there's nothing > > currently stopping punishment proposals, and even if this rule is > > implemented there's nothing stopping someone from changing the AI > > threshold by doing this: "I submit the following proposal, AI-[whatever I > > like]: Whereas PSS is guilty of Treason, when this proposal takes effect > > 10 Blots are created in eir possession". > > Sometimes I think it'd be interesting if we more often did gamestate > changing > proposals with little to no rule changes in them. For instance we could do > things like: > > "Destroy all coins in every players possession. For each player, e earns > 100 > coins." > > Or even > > "The Treasuror SHALL, in a timely fashion after this proposal is adopted, > add > up all existing coins, destroy all existing coins, and cause every player > to > earn TOTAL/PLAYERS coins in an announcement." > > Obviously we've always had a bias towards doing things by rule, and I > think > there's a lot of good arguments for that convention. But it might be fun > to > push the boundaries here a bit sometimes. > > The later example doesn't work, because proposals are instantaneous and cannot extend their own effects. This was a deliberate policy decision, resulting from us not wanting to have untracked proposal mandates piling up. It also makes everything a bit cleaner. The first example works fine though, and we could definitely consider doing things like that. -Aris
