On Wed, 2 Dec 2009, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 7:34 PM, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> If anyone else wants to be Dealor, go ahead. >> >> A scam like you propose is a serious breach of trust; I for one would >> not worry about keeping an office but focus on not being exiled. > > Forging email headers or creating false identities in order to cheat > is a serious breach of trust. Kicking everyone else out of the game > in order to establish a dictatorship is just part of playing nomic. > Agora's longevity has created an odd meta-rule that goes something > like "Thou shalt not destroy Agora", which ironically robs Agora of > some of its nomicness.
Sort of. I think the better way to put it is, as a community of players rather than a single game, a reaction against "playing nastily" is "well we won't play games with you then." Of course, one person's nasty is another player's very decent round of Diplomacy. (Personally the only trust-breach I see if this went through is wholly-in game, and would be breach of trust of an elected official for which removal-from-office is the right penalty, plus of course any Rests earned along the way). Ultimately, what we're dealing with is, if a person does take an absolute dictatorship, and e makes too many changes, then players who are strongly pro-democratic may leave, and having a dictatorship with no players is rather hollow. So ultimately it's very nomic, as you're just trying to make sure players don't exercise their ultimate nomic-right to stop playing. And in Agora, for better or worse, that means fairly conservative play; if you want something else, B is right next door, and as is currently very apparent they don't participate in things too much like Agora :). -G.
