Indeed - whenever I see someone buy a vote, it's a signal to me to read that proposal extra, extra carefully to look for ulterior motives for it passing.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > On 10/25/17 11:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > People don't spend to buy others' votes. They just don't. I have > > theories as to why, but while I've seen many many people set up contracts, > > etc. to sell votes, over years of observed play they rarely make more > > than a few shinies here and there. A bought vote might help one little > > scam/victory proposal here and there, but it's not a basis for gameplay. > > 1) There's enough pre-discussion that few proposals narrowly pass, so a > single vote is rarely relevant. > > 2) There's rarely a clear reward for a proposal passing, so it rarely > pays off. > > 2a) If the proposal passing does have a payoff for you, there's a good > chance you don't want to signal that. > > 3) It's ethically squicky to some people (myself included). > > 3a) It's tempting to think players in a game will be more 'unethical' > because it's, well, a game. But players seem to act fairly high-minded > in routine play, probably because of the implicit social contract of > 'play'. The only time people tend to do ethically grey things is when it > is a clear route to a win. > >
