I had intended to vote against 307 (which transmuted 112) but missed the voting period. My opposition was partly against lengthening the game, but more as a "tit-for-tat"-like strategy, as omd had voted against my first proposal to transmute 110.
The interesting thing on transmutation is that a rule might be made Mutable if everyone agreed that it needed to be changed, but not necessarily on how it should be changed, and each side had reason to believe they would win the subsequent struggle on amendments. With 112, you might have some people who might think a minor fix is in order (delaying the end of the game to allow the final set of proposals to resolve), and others who want a significant lengthening of the game. I also have an idea or two about how a group of players could get around the requirement of unanimity for making a rule mutable against a single player determined to prevent all such transmutations. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: agora-discussion [mailto:agora-discussion-boun...@agoranomic.org] On Behalf Of Fool Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 1:39 AM To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: Re: DIS: Agora XX: 13th and final report On 01/07/2013 12:35 AM, Chuck Carroll wrote: > Like others have mentioned, I like the idea of a Nomic with a defined > endpoint (being well aware, of course, that there is no guarantee that > the endpoint will remain unchanged) in which I can most likely play > for just a few weeks. But there was a guarantee. Rule 112 was immutable .. any single player could have forced the endpoint. I was surprised at how much it got amended, but I was even more surprised simply by the fact that it got transmuted in the first place!
