Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Refactor vote tallies (again)

[Sgeo <sgeoster@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Jamie Dallaire
> <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>> With more than one tweak per nweek, regular proposals would only be useful
>>> for issues where the majority wanted to impose its will on a minority (who
>>> would object to a tweak).
>>
>>
>> Indeed. Good point.
>
> And the problem with that is, what exactly?
>
> Tweaks are a good way to make things happen faster, and in the Eternal
> Nweek of the Spotless Game we're seeing a pretty darn clear idea of
> what the value of that is.
>
> In other words, allowing more tweaks means opting for a game where
> more gets done by Tweaks, and less by Proposals. But that is not
> inherently a bad thing, just a different one. If you're going to be
> scared of changing how things are done, don't play Nomic.
>

Probably there should be a mack value for successful Tweaks in that
case, based perhaps on number of rules it affects?
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss