On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > 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.
Well, promotor has pretty big role too if it's about last-minute changes to voting power before distribution (hence comex's PNP play). And yeah, the "democratize after voting period ends" that gives the assessor that power is unique to the current era; previously, democratizing during voting period killed the proposal entirely and a new identical democratic distributable proposal was put in the pool: ensured full voting period under new vote counts and made effective end time for doing it the end of the voting period. -G.
