On 16/12/13 10:28, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Dec 15, 2013, at 5:21 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> Why? Maybe the fact people have lost interest in Agora is because the core >> of the game has hardly changed in years. It seems like we found >> judicial/proposal/etc. systems that work, and so we don't want to change >> them. But a working Nomic is a boring Nomic. We may need to consider >> fundamentally changing the way we handle these issues so we can have >> something that doesn't work again. That way, we'll get to have fun >> fixing/scamming it. > > What I'd really like (at least, what I think I'd really like) is a "subgame" > that's fun and interesting, has an obvious goal to strive for, has clear ways > to go about trying to achieve that goal, requires a bunch of Nomicky thought > in order to do well in (by which I mean the sort of legal and philosophical > thought that goes into writing proposals and judgements), has strong effects > on every aspect of the nomic, and works well over a mailing list. The game > ought to become one of Agora's institutions, like the judicial system, rather > than coming and going, like the economic systems.
Absolutely. See http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html Michael
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
