Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Geoffrey Spear <wooble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > That's a very good point, BP. Minorities need protection too.
>
> If a nomic changes the rule that requires unanimous support to change
> the gamestate, the players deserve what they get.  If that amounts to
> two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, so be it.


Very well put. I can't argue with that. I agree with Tyler very strongly in
an RL context here. I suppose you could say "changing a minority's contract"
was actually an RL political "thing" here (I believe the word I'm looking
for might be "hoo-haw") pretty recently. Still is sensitive, actually.

But in a nomic context, we don't have to worry about human rights or
anything like that. There's nothing immoral IMO about being the dictator of
a nomic (as long as it doesn't go on too long).

That said, to make contract law an interesting and appealing mechanism that
players will WANT to get involved in, it does need to have a certain degree
of protection from being manipulated by non-party majorities. Whether that
protection is just unwritten sportsmanship or whether it's codified into B
law, we'll have to see.

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