Re: [spoon-discuss] A chance to vote

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/31/02 at 12:13 PM Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

>> > Speaking of philosophies, I really don't think that
>> > they should do much with
>> > voting.  Someone with a philosophy may take many
>> > actions to support it, but
>> > last time I checked, ballot stuffing was frowned
>> > upon.  Glotmorf, your baby,
>> > can you do it sometime?
>>
>>If ballot stuffing is illegal, then we've got a
>>problem with the Hand of Whomever, the Illegally
>>Obtained Ballot, and whatever else my fuzzed brain
>>can't recall offhand.  Plus, the two philosophies we
>>currently have have to do with voting.
>
>I think that as long as the hands remaing specific (just The Grid, just
>Football, etc) they are ok.  Other than that, I think that any vote
>affectors should be removed, including the IOB and everything else.
>
>>Did you have a specific objection?  I can think of a
>>safeguard or two I might want to put in...
>
>I think I stated my position about voting.  My specific thing wanted: a
>proposal that removes the vote bonuses for philosophies.
>
>I know I typed it at some point, but don't recall if the "Hotmail Randomly
>Replace Your Giant Email With Just Your Damn Signature Feature (TM)" ate
>it
>up, so here's a summary of an idea to replace the system with:
>Instead of a single philosophy, allow people to choose a group of
>"philosophy parts" or "aspects" as I'll call them.  Each aspect could be
>something like greedy/uncaring/generous, or scheming/impulsive, or
>forgiving/defensive/vengeful, etc.  Make groups and let people choose one
>of
>each.  Once again, your baby, Glotmorf, so let's hear what you think.

Well, we could do that, sure...it would turn one's philosophy into a coordinate in an N-dimensional system.  We could even name various coordinates depending on the combinations.  But unless this is somehow tied to functionality in the game -- privilege, limitation, eligibility for something, ineligibility for something, etc. -- philosophy just becomes a meaningless attribute, a fungible title.  We've got enough meaningless attributes already.

Tying philosophies in to voting privilege is making them functional.  They could be tied into other things, like bandwidth or grid actions or something.  Or even a certain type of action that can only be included in a proposal by a holder of the right philosophy under the right conditions.

Personally, I don't see that much wrong with the Baron's proposed philosophy, given the other two in existence.  I think the issue is balance rather than prohibition.

Think Cosmic Encounter.

						Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a cyber-anthropologist's blog
http://ix1.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss