On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 16:51 +1100, Michael Norrish wrote: > On 7/12/10 9:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, omd wrote: > >> On the other hand, submitting a proposal with an intentional loophole > >> is bordering on dishonesty and violation of trust, and, indeed, can be > >> illegal unless the title is sufficiently vague and the proposal isn't > >> Disinterested. > > > I disagree vehemently with this sentiment; I think getting a loophole > > through is the fundamental gameplay of a Nomic, and Agora is a Nomic. > > In my view, this (common) view makes nomic an uninteresting game of > pedantic, and unrealistic legalese-wrangling. I personally find scams > super-boring, and would much prefer it if Agora was a game of politics > rather than legislation. But politics requires a grounding in some > other activity.
I think a certain level of scamming is necessary for any realistic political simulation. After all, forcing dubious laws through for personal benefit is a frequent activity of real-life legislatures, it seems sometimes; and even if it doesn't happen, real-life legal systems must be on a constant watch to prevent it. Because we can't easily simulate things like embezzling budgets, or passing laws for the benefit of people who sponsored your re-election rather than for the benefit of your constituents, we can at least allow people to try to slip in legalistic-style loopholes as an equivalent. -- ais523
