[Nomic] Stumo's proposal.

[Stuart Moore]

David (Birch) wrote:
> there's a problem in that if people are voting between two gamestates, 
> one of which is the disputee's (for an example.) and the other of which 
> is from a third porty, then that third party could be chosen randomly to 
> rule on the game state.

That was intentional - the idea is to encourage people to agree on 
something (hence the week long thing) but if not risk that they might 
not get it their way.

> 
> Also... for example... Adam and Jon dispute the game state, and pick 
> from a hat myself to rule on the current gamestate. I rule that I win... 
> and no-one can dispute this?

That should probably be corrected, perhaps "by selecting one of the 
gamestates proposed" - although then everyone proposes they win as a 
state. Perhaps they have to pick between the two gamestates that have 
got the most votes so far.

Also I should probably make it that a player can only have be voteing 
for zero or one interpretation at a point in time.

> 
> I like this... but only if I get picked randomly out of a hat... a hat 
> that can contain my name many many times, I add.
> 
> ----------
> dtb26@cam.ac.uk
> phone number 07906 638541
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nomic-talk mailing list
> Nomic-talk@srcf.ucam.org
> http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/nomic-talk