Goethe wrote: > Wasn't it Peter Suber who said (paraphrasing) "anyone who agrees to > a Rules change mechanism that's anything other than unanimous deserves > what they get"? -G.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm "After Nomic was first published in Scientific American, a German philosopher wrote to me insisting that Rule 101 (that players should obey the rules) should be omitted from the Initial Set and made part of a truly immutable shell. He missed an essential point of the game. Rule 101 is included precisely so that it can be amended; if players amend or repeal it, they deserve what they get." and, later, "My rationale for requiring unanimous votes for amendment, initially, is to create a kind of social contract in which no player can be overruled until she consents to take the risk by switching to majority rule or some other system."
