On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 19:07 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote: > I see this proposal not as a way for me to be a jackass, but to reveal > a part of the game as flawed. Scamming is something that is very > intricate in the game, and as a result it should be expected that > someone would submit a proposal like this. Instead of getting angry at > the proposal, change the rules to make the proposal impossible. I > don't see how this scam is different from any other. It almost certainly won't pass. Especially not if people use the normal tactic to counter that particular scam of setting up conditional votes in such a way that they collectively vote AGAINST if that would block the scam, or FOR otherwise.
Also, if the Assessor and Promotor are willing to mess with timing, a fix proposal that blocked the scam could probably be forced through before the scam itself was resolved. Finally, I would not be at all averse to attempting to filibuster that proposal if it looked like passing. Scams that involve deregistering people can get people very annoyed; I know that at least one player who normally is willing to run any sort of scam will refuse to run scams that involve deregistering other players. -- ais523
