On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >> 7306 3.0 omd Support Democracy Considered No Fun > AGAINST >> 7307 1.0 omd unrevive lame pun 1 > AGAINST. I veto this Agoran Decision.
The latter veto is, by the way, my reasoning for the former proposal (didn't respond to ais523 because I was too tired at the time). We already have Gerontocracies for really bad scam proposals, and more interesting ways to block the rest. Although hiding scams in proposals is interesting (but I [still] don't like it very much, since it's sort of a breach of trust and these bugs are often minor enough that nobody ever gets around to trying to exploit them and they stay in the rules forever; in this sense I have a fairly different set of nomic ethics from ais523), you may as well try to pass such proposals by popular vote, perhaps with the help of rubberstamp or bribes; in fact, that's probably easier than passing them with a weird chamber, because the chamber would be a huge scam marker and people would scrutinize and democratize them. When the entire purpose of the new chambers is to be unfair and game mechanical, scams should not be effectively blocked from participating in them; indeed, since nobody seems to want to incur the ire that would come from passing an unpopular non-scam proposal blatantly undemocratically, if democratization is used often enough, I suspect the chambers will be rarely used.
