twg wrote: > I submit this proposal: Thanks for the quick response and solution!! > Incidentally, I selected you and D. Margaux to attack because the two of > you have the most coins and therefore are the biggest threats. I guess > that doesn't hold true if you don't want to play at all (which I admit I > didn't expect), but oh well. Oops, saying "not interested" makes it sound like I thought it's a bad sub-game or something - it wasn't so much "don't want to play at all" but after noodling around with that card trading game idea I realized I was just not in the place to jump into *any* subgame for the next few weeks at least, so while the voting was going on I was sorta thinking "I'm not going to read this closely, I'll just watch for a bit and maybe jump in later". So it was really a surprise when I realized that was a crime (and who knows, I guess I've got a week to respond...) > The mandatoriness of submitting them is a holdover from ATMunn's original > version, where the method for making the game optional was for Spaceships > to be created by announcement; I didn't think to rephrase it. I apologise > for the inadvertent autocratic behaviour. That totally makes sense, I was thinking "I wouldn't object if you had to opt-in by creating a spaceship or something" so that was probably why it seemed fine before (I think the only time I commented on this was on an early ATMunn draft). I was reflecting just now: the only time I can think of (ever) that a player was required to respond to something without an opt-in of some kind was an ancient tax system in an old economy (and even that required some participation to earn enough to be taxed above deductibles, and was horribly controversial at the time). -G.
