I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability. (And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or anything)
On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in other > games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could decide > to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month; no > deceit is necessary for the competition. > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona, <liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable >> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself >> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some >> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than >> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. >> >> On 11/22/17, ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to >> prevent >> > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so what? >> They >> > become the Speaker, and the game moves on. >> > >> > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +0000, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player to >> >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with Shinies >> >>> alone. >> >> >> >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a >> >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) >> >> >> > >> >
