I disagree, honestly. I don't think it's a good idea, especially in
regards to new players, to say "hey, so if there's a problem with the
rules, you can do this to fix it, but you can get massively punished for
doing something for the good of Agora." And if someone is unfamiliar
with our criminal punishment system, it might look more like "you will
be punished massively."
On 6/19/2020 9:47 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
i actually genuinely think that the proposal i created is probably
the best fix for this, it means you can certify a proposal but you
accept the risk of a massive fine (and that fine will be nominal if
it's actually, manifestly, incredibly necessary or whatever)
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:45 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
< agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
I think we need a free way of pending patch proposals. The voters
appear to agree with me. I know some prominent and respected voices
disagree, but the proposal passed, so clearly public sentiment
presently favors something along these lines.
However, the mechanism I proposed might have been messy. There are
alternative ideas that would cause fewer CFJs. This gets a bit
logistically interesting though because it's preferable for any
such mechanism to be a) fast, and b) discourage abuse.
Unfortunately, those things go against each other. This is why I
suggested a criminal mechanism, which punishes abuse after the
fact. The obvious alternative is a dependent action. 2 Agoran
Consent works pretty well as a cure to abuse of anything. It also
takes 4 days, which is too long for patches IMO. That leaves with N
support. The problem with actions taken with N support is that
you've gotta pick a value of N that is high enough to stop a cabal
of taking advantage of it and low enough to be easily achievable.
That being said, something like with 5 support backed by a SHOULD
might do it.
A final solution, which I'm tossing in mostly as a joke, would be
to just take the once a week limitation off my emergency pending
powers.
Or, of course, we could just repeal it. A repeal does remove the
problem, though at the cost of also removing a mechanism that we've
collectively agreed is a good idea.
Thoughts?
-Aris
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)
