Daniel Lepage on Wed, 6 Dec 2006 09:20:07 -0700 (MST)

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

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

On Dec 6, 2006, at 10:50 AM, shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

>> For historical reasons, I'd love it if this were named "Bob the
>> Voting Fish".
> I'm going with "Bob the evil voting fish" if that's okay with you.

As it stands, the thing doesn't actually seem particularly evil to  
me. Am I missing something?

Historical Fun Fact: The original Bob the Voting Fish was actually  
designed to prevent kickbacks like the one you had at the bottom of  
this prop. The rule was basically that if a proposal tried to refer  
to the players who voted FOR it, or if a rule created by a proposal  
did, etc., then the votes would all appear to have come from Bob the  
Voting Fish.

Since eir repeal during a series of kickback reforms, Bob has  
frequently been used in examples where a player needed to refer to  
some random player but didn't want to name any current player.

For example:
Any Pseudocode structure not covered under normal English usage [[for  
example, "If I have any points left, I give one to Bob the Voting  
Fish" is covered under normal English usage]] must be preceded by the  
string "#include <nomic.h>" and followed by the string "/* end of  
code */".
			-- p1779, "Pseudocoding is not a Crime". Zarpint, nweek 57.

>> 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  
> 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.

But my prop can also specify that it destroys the other props. Then  
it becomes another Telephone - the first player to respond wins. I am  
opposed to these in general, because they reward people with more  
free time.

>> 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.

The way you've currently phrased it, e'd cast 20 votes for every  
proposal at once, because none of them would have passed yet, and  
then give away al votes once the props all passed.

spoon-discuss mailing list