2009/3/3 Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk>:
> 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
>
>
Oh, I see. Clever indeed. Then again, as long as we suppose that eir
scam involves forcing the rule through without a fair vote (which is
pretty likely - I don't think anyone would vote for it) then e could
probably perform the rest of the scam in the very same message, and
afterwards repeal the rule.
So yes, maybe "amend" is better than "repeal", but I don't see how any
of them is really to be trusted.
