Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fix veto loophole

2008-07-16 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >> AI<1 proposals would be unable to modify rules. Additionally, any >> proposal that requires AI<1 to pass presumably could be trivially >> reversed by the action of an opposing AI<=1 proposal. > > Such proposals can

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fix veto loophole

2008-07-16 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > AI<1 proposals would be unable to modify rules. Additionally, any > proposal that requires AI<1 to pass presumably could be trivially > reversed by the action of an opposing AI<=1 proposal. Such proposals can't even be adopted; R955(b). -Goethe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fix veto loophole

2008-07-16 Thread Ian Kelly
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:14 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course, what might be really interesting would be an antiveto that > lowered AI by 1; AI<1 proposals could be interesting, as could making > proposals insufficiently powerful so they couldn't do what they were > meant to be ab

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fix veto loophole

2008-07-16 Thread ais523
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 13:18 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:14 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of course, what might be really interesting would be an antiveto that > > lowered AI by 1; AI<1 proposals could be interesting, as could making > > proposals insufficien

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fix veto loophole

2008-07-16 Thread Geoffrey Spear
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:14 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course, what might be really interesting would be an antiveto that > lowered AI by 1; AI<1 proposals could be interesting, as could making > proposals insufficiently powerful so they couldn't do what they were > meant to be abl

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fix veto loophole

2008-07-16 Thread ais523
On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 11:10 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote: > It's not broken. As I noted in the other thread, an ordinary decision > that is vetoed once becomes democratic and is no longer eligible for > veto. > > -root Ah, yes, the rules seem to back you up on that; still, I was contractually obligated

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fix veto loophole

2008-07-16 Thread Ian Kelly
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I submit the following proposal, entitled "fix veto loophole", and set > its AI to 2. > > In Rule 2019, replace: > > c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary > decision in its voting