If partners could not agree what to do, the holder of the Golden Medallion of Fairness could either yield to partner or have way, in which case giving the Golden Medallion of fairness to partner.

The holder of the Golden Medallion of Fairness should use it's power only when it matters enough.
-- Mustardface, May 22 2010

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.
-- hippo, May 22 2010


Great idea. Like the conch in _Lord of the Flies_.
-- mouseposture, May 22 2010


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.
-- WcW, May 22 2010


I'm thinking Mf must be single.
-- RayfordSteele, May 23 2010


// Mf must be single//

Which is of course the fairest possible arrangement.
-- Bad Jim, May 23 2010


Logistically, how would having 2 medallions in one relationship work?
-- DrWorm, May 24 2010


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?
-- mouseposture, May 24 2010


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.
-- RayfordSteele, May 24 2010


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.
-- Mustardface, May 25 2010


I see the damn thing breaking in ten minutes, sorry. [-]
-- daseva, May 25 2010


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.
-- xaviergisz, May 25 2010


I think it would highly depend on the phase of the lunar calendar.
-- RayfordSteele, May 25 2010


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.
-- zen_tom, May 25 2010


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.
-- RayfordSteele, May 25 2010


This sounds not entirely unlike mechanisms for the resolution of deadlock in 50-50 joint ventures.
-- calum, May 25 2010


maybe if it was green and slimy, one would think twice about wanting it...
-- xandram, May 25 2010


[+] This idea does not deserve to have a bone. That would be unfair!
-- DrWorm, May 25 2010



random, halfbakery