Daniel Lepage on 17 Jan 2004 20:33:23 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] repeal-o-prop 


On Jan 17, 2004, at 11:47 AM, SkArcher wrote:



is one man one vote such a difficult concept?
No, but it's a boring one. I like the idea of a game where players fight for voting power.
But even if you want one man, one vote, you still don't need to scrap philosophies. There's no reason why all philosophies have to confer strange voting habits upon their members. You could have philosophies that affect card playing, justice, junkbots, etc. 



lets try getting the game workable _before_ breaking it again shall we?
The game works right now; I don't see how having interesting philosophies would break it.
I think, perhaps, you have a different idea than I do of what constitutes a "working" game. If we can make proposals and pass/fail them, then I think the game is working, since everything else can be tweaked and twiddled by props. The tweaking and twiddling is half the fun - if nothing needs fixing, things will be boring. 


1272
It's not used much, but I hope it will be once the Council is set up - Dave can deputize them to do his work, before we finally do away with the position of "administrator" and make them formally do his work.
I'd rather use the floating Duties system, as it won't get as broken as easily
Question: How does it reduce Dave's workload to do away with both Deputies and Ministries? 

Because for my next trick i'm going to do away with Dave :)
Seriously tho, I want to remove any and all necessity for "The Administrator" in the ruleset and to make everything work by floating recognition of Duties
That will require serious reworking of some things, such as the Roster, and the voting scripts that could wreak havoc on the records if they were used improperly.
If you can fix up the ruleset to the point where ministers and the admin are unneeded, then I'll consider voting to repeal ministers and the admin. But until you've done so, we can't remove them, 'cause they're still needed. 


alter rule 625 to read as follows

{{
__Quotes__

There exists a Game Document known as the Big Ol' Book of Quotes.
The Quotekeeper is responsible for updating the Big Ol' Book of Quotes in accordance with the rules defining that entity.
Each nweek The Quotekeeper shall be paid two points per quote added to the Big Ol' Book of Quotes. 

}}
Don't destroy MinGrems unless you destroy Gremlins too. Don't destroy MinEcon if you don't destroy BNS too. Don't destroy MinKeys - I still hope that someday Dave will let somebody edit keywords, and things will suddenly be logical.
As I note, MinGrems has nothing to actually do - the effects of the remaining gremlins happen at the instigation of players and aren't needing someone to watch them.
Nonetheless, it seems likely that more gremlins will be created, unless you repeal the rule.
As I plan on doing away with the Admin in the ruleset then all the subsequent Gremlins will have to work without either Dave or the Ministry 

Write better props, basically
If somebody is willing to run a Gremlin ministry, why shouldn't we use their services to allow for more interesting Gremlins? 


}}
Now, from what I can see, the admins responsibilities are now only the following 

recognising props


And all other game actions.
the difference between recognition of their happening and posting them to the forums is pretty much automatic - and the the SoL can be modified to deal with that problem anyway
I hope you don't intend for the SoL to retroactively legalize any action a player says e takes.... we've had enough problems with that already.
No, I was more thinking of extending its influence so that any action taken by a player can be objected to by any player providing its done within a specific amount of time. 

That's how it used to read. And that caused all sorts of trouble.


*shrugs* I don't like councils, i prefer democracy
An elected council is fairly democratic. I believe that there will always be some aspects of the game that are better handled by a small group of people or by a single person; it is for this reason that I prefer Ministries to Duties. Some things can be highly automated, if a Minister with enough programming skill is put in charge of them; to highly automate a Duty, some player would have to write an interface that not only handled the Duty, but was publicly available, had some system to prevent out-of-game meddlers from screwing up the data, and was simple enough to be usable by all players. That's harder and takes longer, which means that if everything becomes a Duty, there's not a lot of incentive for anyone to write code to do things.
except the desire for a better game. I prefer the idea of using the concept of a true democracy, seeing as the Nomic is small enough for direct democracy on the athenian model, rather then any model of representitive democracy
But the fact remains that some things work better when there's a single person or a small group of people you can point to and say, "That's the guy who takes care of this aspect of the game." 

--
Wonko

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