Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: The rot sets in

[bd <nomic@xxxxxxx>]

shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

>> Should this pass, I will immediately submit X props, where X is three
>> times the number of players, each defining some fairly trivial means
>> of transferring votes from other players to myself, and each also
>> including as a subclause that I Win, and that all other proposals
>> that nweek are treated as thought every vote cast on them were AGAINST.
> 
> That's sort of the point.  But everyone else will be doing the same
> thing, remember.  However, maybe I can tweak the thing a little.

So we all write clauses to counteract each other's props, and the first 
one proposed wins.

>> The voting machine will vote FOR all of these with much more power
>> than the combined other players can stop, so all will pass, and in
>> doing so will negate any other props trying to the same thing.
> 
> Don't forget that each time Bob helps pass a proposal, it is also
> helping itself to become weaker, because it gives away votes.

It doesn't matter. Just the limit on the number of available votes is 
sufficient to break the game. It's just a matter of who does it first - 
er, last. Actually, it's pretty much arbitrary, but the result is 
someone becomes dictator. No thanks.

>> 1. I disapprove of legislative kickbacks and will vote against this
>> prop simply because it tries to reward those who vote against it.
> 
> Are people more likely to pass this one if the kickback clause is
> removed?  Anyone else have an opinion?

Generally speaking, yes, but I'd still vote AGAINST because it breaks 
the game the next nweek.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss