Alex Smith wrote: > 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. > > What about a sort of proposal that can't be made democratic, but can't > do anything but award wins? That would let people mess around with all > the ordinary-proposal tricks without making things too hairy.
All that would do is create a system by which a coalition of players and enough notes can grant themselves a boring victory.
