Read Rule 2.7 and consider the implications of what you’re suggesting.  Who in their right mind would ever do this?

I dislike the idea of Olympians forming other teams. We should all be in this together.

“The Blognomic Team consists exclusively of all Olympians (other than any one or more Olympians who have withdrawn from the Blognomic Team or been ejected from the Blognomic Team, to the extent permitted by the Rules). No Olympian may belong to more than one Team. Unless the context requires otherwise, the term “Team” means the Blognomic Team or any rival team listed in Rule 2.2.”

This seems to be provisional to new teams popping up. It already has the context for withdrawing from the Blognomic Team.

Also, as far as 2.7 goes, Blognomic doesn’t have near the score that our rivals have. 2.7 will have to be ammended at some point, or our rivals will have to get a whole lot easier. Plus, whose to say that there couldn’t be a new winning condition using this team-founding concept?

As far as all being together, how was 2.7 allowed to pass in the first place if that was the only goal?

This rule is just letting people have the option of joining and forming new teams. Whether or not people will do it should not be a factor in it’s passing, seeing as how the nature of a nomic might cause people to be very inclined to change later. Does the proposal hold water? Could it add interest to the game, rather than the same plug and chug stuff we’re doing right now? Those are questions you should base your vote on.

  I would vote   if there was some provision in Rule 2.7 about Olympian-created teams. As it is, an Olympian could create a team, wait for someone else to join it (who has a lower score than them) and then leave and win.

Bah, I thought 2.7 meant that an Olympian had to have a score greater than all teams in order to clain victory.

alethiophile:  Your use of the FOR icon is overriding your intended vote.