Re: [s-d] Voting

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Roger Hicks wrote:
> Wonko wrote:
>> I'm open to the idea of being "protected" by another nomic, I just
>> disapprove of the methods they used to get that position (namely, that
>> a rule change meant to help us fix the game was instead used to take
>> over the game, and then to repeal itself). While I don't approve of
>> rule 1, I don't want to cut off diplomatic relations with Agora
>> either.

Right. I think that there's much to be gained and much fun to be had with
an internomic relationship. But giving Agora unrestricted access to change
our ruleset is a bit much.

> I suppose I should take a moment and publicly apologize for my hasty
> takeover attempt. It was meant to be all in good fun. As B Nomic had
> been idle for the past few months, I honestly didn't think anyone
> would care. it wasn't my intention to step on anyone's toes.

Oh, taking over the game is definitely part of the fun. :)
And I do have to thank you for reinvigorating our game.
But now that it's been done, I think that the country of B Nomic wants a
little more independence.

> As a player of both B Nomic and Agora, I truly believe that both could
> benefit from each other.

That I am also sure of.

> Let me assure those of you who are concerned
> about Agora serving as dictator that such is not the case. Agora is
> restricted to making changes to B Nomic only with a 2/3 majority, and
> even then it is limited to those actions which are beneficial and will
> lead to a preservation of B Nomic.

While that might be the case now, Nomic is, of course, a game of change.
It's possible somebody could scam Agora somehow and in the process scam
us. And I have enough trouble watching for loopholes in our own rules
without needing to worry about someone else's rules.

Or at the very least, the 2/3 majority might change to a 1/2 majority
overnight.

> I am also in favor of bd_'s idea of making B Nomic a player of Agora,
> which could easily be done, and would provide B Nomic with some
> representation, so as to prevent a one-way relationship.

While there might be some merit to that, again, I'm not sure I want to
take on handling two nomics at once. Keeping track of one is hard enough
for me. So it's be tough for me to vote effectively on how B Nomic should
be voting in other nomics. I'm not completely against the idea, though.

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