Yes, but enacting ribbons that everyone has a roughly equal chance of winning is kind of "trading wins"
On 11/22/17, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of > them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of > honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think > the players who enacted them each expected to win by them. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Corona <liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> 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.) >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>> >
