On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 22:36 +0100, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: > 2009/3/3 Taral <tar...@gmail.com>: > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: > >> Voting for this one could be useful insurance against whatever Goethe is > >> trying. We already have H. Cassandra Goethe, don't make me a Cassandra > >> too... > > > > Change amend to repeal, and I'll vote for it. > > > > Me too. What was the amend thing about anyway? As far as I see, the > only thing that would happen if we voted it through, is that it > wouldn't be Goethe that performed the arbitrary rule change to the > rule, but rather the first player to react when it passed. If Goethe > could get a win through is rule, then any player could just as easily > do it with that one. Or have I got this wrong?
It's because Goethe wouldn't dare give an arbitrary player a win, so if the proposal I proposed passed, then Goethe wouldn't run whatever scam e was planning to gain a dictatorship. Slightly unusual, I know. If it said "repeal" instead, there's still a chance Goethe would force through eir rule and gain a dictatorship by being faster than everyone else; this way round, it avoids the problem in the first place. Slightly unusual, but historical anti-scam methods have tended not to work; I thought I'd try something more unusual. -- ais523 who is not really used to being an anti-scamster
