On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, comex wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> a coalition deal be made in real time for an allegiance shift (it's >> happened before > > Not while I've been a player. :P We need more hotly contested > offices. Which means that we should give officeholders more rewards > and duties of arbitration.
It was indeed an interesting time. It came about (primarily) through "groups" which were a bit like partnerships but more like political parties (you could only be a member of one group, a group had to have at least 3 members). Groups had votes on *democratic* proposals, and each group had votes equal to #of total players/# of groups, so a substantial number. Also, by forming a group, you reduced the power of everyone else's group. The groups naturally led to competition for everything... offices, etc. with shifting alliances and a lot of "interesting" (some might say too interesting) play. The officer's duties were not *that* much more than now, although they did control the flow of currency in a meaningful way (including aspects of deciding currency supply). So that wasn't much of a contributing factor. But be careful what you wish for. Even with groups, in Agora, long-term alliances don't tend to happen due to policy--- we might argue vociferously one day and then agree closely the next; so there's not much of a "policy" reason to choose one group over another. In this previous case, the alliances occurred because there were a couple players who actively, actively disliked (perhaps despised) each other and turned everything into a power struggle. That plus groups meant many people "chose sides" over one or the other (with neutral groups switching sides) but often with lots and lots of temper. See CFJ 1290, first paragraph of caller's arguments, for some examples of the bile we were spewing at the time. So now you know, you toffee-nosed peanut-brained idiot. -Goethe
