On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > >> On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 11:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> The only risk I see is that reducing quorum when the number of active > >>> players stays high ups the conspiracy attempt: in the words of a past > >>> wise agoran, "quorum describes the minimum size for a legislative > >>> conspiracy." > >> > >> Which, given the existence of a relevant MWoP, is 3. > > > > Hence the existence of "making a proposal Democratic" (not that timing > > isn't everything here). -G. > > (And you'd need to include both the Rubberstamper and the wielder of the > veto in the 3). It's actually been a long time since we've had a proposal > that people on both sides have used the various procedural tricks to > make the process interesting in a gameplay sense. Maybe we should try > Takeover Proposals again. -G.
Actually, the last dictatorship proposal forced through by scam (as opposed to a proposal which was itself a scam) was done by setting three voting limits up to 8 at the last minute of a proposal, swamping all the other votes. The WoV didn't have a chance to veto; the rubberstamper didn't need to rubberstamp (it was quorumed, mostly with AGAINST voters); it's actually the Assessor who decides whether such scams work, by timing the resolution of the proposals to after/before people can do something about it. -- ais523
