On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
> Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 12:08 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> (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.
To make it good:
1. The results should lead to increased position for a subset of players
(e.g. prerogatives, voting power, etc.)
2. The results should be linked to procedural proposal tricks and not
raw votes. For example, it could be "if a proposal of this type's
voting period ends and it meets quorum within X time of it being
submitted, the submitting coalition gets the victory, whether or not
the proposal is adopted."
-G.
