h a l f b a k e r yNaturally low in facts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
It wouldn't work - it's better to not have the GMoF as then
you have a huge amount of power over your partner to get
your way. |
|
| |
Great idea. Like the conch in _Lord of the Flies_. |
|
| |
I don't know if I want to include "the nuclear option" in my relationships, especially if it is designed to be entirely unilateral. Rather than inducing fairness this introduces a reciprocating indulgence of unfairness. |
|
| |
I'm thinking Mf must be single. |
|
| |
Which is of course the fairest possible arrangement. |
|
| |
Logistically, how would having 2 medallions in one
relationship work? |
|
| |
That might be better. With an odd number, one partner
always holds the moral high ground. With an even number, a
situation is possible in which neither partner is "one-upping"
the other. But what about menages (I'm not naming any
names) with three members? |
|
| |
I think something like a basketball possession arrow integrated into the headboard would do nicely. Come to think of it, an entire scoreboard could have some uses... |
|
| |
I'd better shut up now before *I* end up single. |
|
| |
The value of possessing the Golden Medallion of Fairness is a)
that it can give the holder an overriding decision power when it
matters enough and b) while the holder retains it, it is a symbol
that the holder is unselfish. |
|
| |
I now contemplate that the holder of the Golden Medallion of
Fairness could have the option of putting the Golden Medallion
of Fairness 'On the Mantel', thereby voluntarily put it in a
position where either party can use it, first come. Once used, it
would transfer to the other party. While it remains on the mantel,
the pair may consider themselves to be working together
unselfishly, cooperatively, harmoniously. |
|
| |
My account holder is married and has never tested a Medallion
of Fairness. |
|
| |
I see the damn thing breaking in ten minutes, sorry.
[-] |
|
| |
Great idea. In relationships already working pretty well this would fun. On the other hand, in bad relationships this would be quickly devolve into destructive behaviour. |
|
| |
I think it would highly depend on the phase of the
lunar calendar. |
|
| |
As [hippo] and others point out, there are problems - it is easy to game due to the binary nature of the system. |
|
| |
A smaller point of issue could be easily traded for something out of all proportion - If, for example, I wanted to sell our children into a life of slavery in return for a handfull of beans, I might yield on a less important matter (e.g. doing the washing up) in order to gain access to the GMoF, at which stage, beantime would become an inevitability. |
|
| |
Multiple GMoFs might solve this problem - perhaps issuing a fixed number of Golden Coins of Fairness might allow a relationship to better track fairness at a more granular level - although negotiating how many coins might buy the other party's enyieldenment might be a delicate process. |
|
| |
We must make it less predictable. Standard Eenie-
meenie-mienie-moe methodology, then? |
|
| |
The largest problem here is in the assumption that
both parties are operating on the same principles. If
you were ever to run into a 'real' problem that the
other party cares about quite significantly,
maintaining an appearance of pseudo-equity in some
diplomatic game is not going to remain a high
priority. |
|
| |
This sounds not entirely unlike mechanisms for the resolution of deadlock in 50-50 joint ventures. |
|
| |
maybe if it was green and slimy, one would think twice about wanting it... |
|
| |
[+] This idea does not deserve to have a bone. That would be
unfair! |
|
| |