Subject: Re: [MacroNomic] Revisions

From: "Brian Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Jul 98 23:28:06 -0400

>I would also like to see wording such that no player may ever manage more
>than 40% of the total vote farms currently managed by players. (with
>wording to reduce acreage or whatever should the situation occur through a
>player leaving or whatever).  The reason for this, is if you award vote
>acres, someone who is consistantly a 'good player' could amass a large
>quantity of votes and this leads to them amassing more to the point where
>they could dictate the course of the game unilaterally.  I'd rather have a
>saftey valve in place first that never allows pure dictatorial control.

Well, there already is a rule (Section 2-4-0-0: Winning by Power) such that
if they control more than 50% of the vote farms, they win and the vote
farms are redistributed evenly among the players. This way, there is no
point when a single player has dictatorial control (remember, if they own
less than 50%, they can be overthrown by all of the other players
unanimously). However, I also think it should be hard to gain acreage, and
not something like 5 per unanimous proposal.

--- Brian Campbell (AKA lambda)
Visit my webpage: http://world.std.com/~campbell/Brian/
Visit the Latin Club webpage: http://world.std.com/~lambda/
Visit the MacroNomic webpage: http://world.std.com/~lambda/macronomic/

----------
Nihil sub sole novum.

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 00:47:04 -0700 (PDT)

>not something like 5 per unanimous proposal.

I'd forgotten about that rule.. That covers my case then :)

--JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]