306 Final: Transmutation of 105

[quintopia]

Rule 105 shall be made mutable.

[Rye Coal]

approved

[quintopia]

approved

[Rezantis]

I approve.

Sorry I didn't weigh into the debate, I was more curious what you all had to say about it than having any input myself.

[tinuviel]

I approve.

[CasualSax]

abstain.

[SuperusSophia]

vetoed.  this proposal creates more potential problems then it solves.

[Carthrat]

Approved. How does it create problems? It doesn't yet *change* anything, but opens the door for it.

[SuperusSophia]

It opens the door for this: "Every player is an eligible voter" to be potentially changed in negative ways, especially when proposals no longer need a unanimous vote.

[Rye Coal]

Soph,

Thanks for your input in the debate of this proposal. How about something more specific? I don't see how opening a decidedly miss written law for revision causes any harm.

Char Coal

[CasualSax]

Its the same argument I brought up in the debate but got shrugged off.  It opens up a can of worms, as once its mutable, it can then be 'over-ridden' even if it isn't edited.

[Rye Coal]

sorry sax, Ahem, excuse me: Lord High Poomba CasualSax  a 'can of worms' is  hardly any  more specific.  I didn't shrug off your concern either, I addressed it, in its vaugeness, to the best of my interpretive abilities. Is there some other concerns for mutating 105 other than retracting the voting rights of current or future players? Because I addressed that one already in discussion. Since you didn't clarify your concerns further I assumed I inferred your concern correctly, am I mistaken?

Char Coal

[CasualSax]

A can of worms related to taking away voting rights and making them 'priveleges', as immutables are more...constitutional.  Saying you would vote against it is no garuntee that such a thing will not get passed - especially as power and manipulation seem to be the keys to the game.  I was never, not once "vague" as you describe.  You shrugged it off by saying such a thing would never pass, which simply is not written in stone.

If such a redundant law was passed and made immutable, and then this was transmuted, it would probably be easier to pass.

Furthermore, by rule 301, you should address me as Lord High Poomba CasualSax - please edit your post accordingly.

[Rye Coal]

To: Lord High Poomba CasualSax

All right so your concerned someone  is going to

1. make a redundant rule which states the right to  vote  is actually a privledge.

2. Make said rule immutable

3. transmute 105 and remove it from game

and  now we are a simple rule away from depriving individuals of the right to vote by defining 'privlidge' in a new proposal.

I see you here... this would make it possible to deprive one of the vote, but after that I'm not seeing the connection to your objection to transmuting 105.  This particular strategy is rather lengthy for one thing. And is rather easily fouled up. Two it doesnt really apply here. So we transmute 105 it can now be edited.

Following your model all someone has to do is prpose to change right=>privledge and make it immutable. AND pass it. Getting it passed would be the problem as 'privlidge' would need to be clearly defined. Any way you slice it there are an ample number of oppritunities to shoot down such a bold move.

Char Coal

[CasualSax]

I used the words 'right' and 'priveledge' losely - an explanation, not something to be turned into law.  I did not personally object to 105, you might note - I pointed out the problem, and I was noting that that seems to be how Sophia felt about it.  I agree it is a lengthy process, but it is a much safer route than the one that was currently proposed, and the only one I can think of that you can get what you want without making the right to vote 'editable'.  There are more steps - and it can be stopped at any step, but at any step there is no actual problem - if someone stops it, it stops, but at no point is the right to vote not protected.