On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ps. thank you for an illustration that it's useful to have equity to >> prevent contracts from being ruined by crap. > > The contract can easily specify that a vote consists of listing a > single party's name with no conditionals without needing equity to > sort it out. We're nomic players, we should be able to write robust > rulesets for contract-defined games.
And why should we be forced to waste so much time with that if we just want to play the contest? That's equivalent to saying "we should be willing to play monopoly assuming that we have to watch each other every moment against stealing money from the bank." The question is whether enough players think that this to adds to the game, or whether this makes a good game spoiled by a few poor sports. Well I *do* know Murphy appreciates the old Illuminati card game... But I should note that equity is not at all needed to be judge this. Inquiry case: were those votes valid? Precedent result: No, the contest does not authorize conditional votes (the specific authorization in the ruleset implies its a special case for agoran decisions) and for contests, Agoran custom is to generally assume contestmaster leeway in interpreting conditionals etc. (this assumes of course that Murphy as contestmaster initially interprets these votes as unclear). And finally, using Conditional Votes in the Rules as a guide, these votes do not use information reasonably available during the voting period. -G.
