On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 8:42 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On 8/29/2022 12:11 PM, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022, 9:19 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 2022-08-28 at 22:16 -0700, Forest Sweeney via agora-business > >> wrote: > >>> As I'm kinda bullying everyone, I thought it would be appropriate if > >>> anything passes that I have some sort of penalty also. This sorta > >>> thing really shouldn't be allowed, though. > >> > >> I think the easiest way to prevent this sort of thing would be to ban > >> people who try from submitting proposals. (In fact, given that your > >> stated intention is to bully us into passing your rule, I am going to > >> attempt to bully you into retracting it: if you don't retract it within > >> the next few days, I will submit a proposal to ban you from submitting > >> proposals.) > >> > >> A rules-based solution is not going to work. It is far too easy to work > >> around. > > > > I don't understand how one would work around it, but mainly, I think it > > codifies the intent that we shouldn't be bullying voters. However, the > only > > reasons I had heard against it thus far was that it promotes interesting > > gameplay, which I disagree with, but I thank you for a different angle on > > this, as it isn't one I saw yet. > > So, we once had this rule (this was before conditional votes existed): > > Rule 1561/1 (Power=2) > Illegality of Bonus Clauses > > Any Proposal which offers a bribe to a Player or Players to > vote either FOR or AGAINST a Proposal (either itself or another > Proposal) shall be completely without effect, even if it is > adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. > > It *did* lead to some interesting CFJs on what constituted a bribe (like, > if you adjust game balance without resetting everything, there will be > inevitably some people who come out ahead) but my memory is that it mostly > did the job (albeit with a vastly different overall ruleset, and now we'd > want to include "threats" as well as "bribes"). > I think my concern here is that current subgames and play is asset-based. No matter what the bribe is, it is already taking away from other players, which is equivalent to bullying, just hidden. Giving people coins increases the amount a boatload is, thus reducing the amount of boatloads other players have. Giving people points reduces the amount of points other player's have, as winning by points reduces others' points by half. Horses, stones, and birds are all things that only one person can earn. I'm on the fence on the need for this overall - I got a dictatorship last > year by bribing people in a proposal, and I think the players at the time > generally found that to be fun. On the other hand, when we choose a set > of rules for coins, stones or whatever it's less fun if these sorts of > proposals disrupt things too much. > As far as the need goes, I suppose we don't see this style of play right now, but I can simply imagine anyone doing it. As it stands, I'd be swayed on proposals like this by other players, hence my concern. But I *do* agree with ais523, that I would have been far more likely to > vote for this sort of thing if it wasn't accompanied with the bullying > proof of concept... :P > See above: giving things (other than stamps, ribbons, and patent titles) still takes away from others. And as was pointed out with Marvies, it can unevenly put players in precarious positions. (ie inactive players, although this case might just be Marvies being a special thing). (Overall, I retracted the proposal as it was voted down properly instead of failing quorum permanently.) -- 4st Referee [image: width=] <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
