On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On the other hand, we *are* trying to model a "fair" judicial system, so >> bribery for judges is a different (i.e. more frowned-upon) matter. > > I'm curious why one and not the other?
Ideally, when people vote, they vote however they like. If they want to vote so as to fulfill some obligation, then so be it; that's how they like to vote. Ideally, when judges judge, they judge some appropriate judgement. If they want to judge inappropriately so as to fulfill some obligation, then that judgement is inappropriate and should be overturned, and the judge should be punished. On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 3:34 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 13:25 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: >> I believe such actions would be interesting to experiment with here in >> Agora. I strongly believe such actions should not be experimented with >> at the State or Federal level of a world superpower. > Well, B Nomic has Oracularities, which is sort-of like ratifying > judgements; when a judgement is made, the Judge can make arbitrary > changes to the gamestate to cause the judgement to become true, with > certain limits (it's with a certain amount of support and without > opposition, or something like that). That accomplishes much the same > thing. In B Nomic, a Priest can include an Oracularity in eir Answer to a Consultation. Answers are adopted with what's essentially Agoran Consent, and both the Oracularity and the Answer proper are either adopted or tossed out to be judged by someone else. An Oracularity can specify any changes to the game state. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
