On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 11:55 -0500, Nic Evans wrote: > I do want to make it clear that the *only* reasons I allowed a junta > was 1) ais523 is a long-term player in very good standing, and 2) the junta > doesn't bestow any real power besides the ability to stall the game > indefinitely (and even then I can think of ways to overcome it).
It's not even indefinite, there's a way to pend proposals via waiting 21 days. I took care that the scam proposal didn't give me any sort of dictatorship at all. Passing dictatorships is fun, but I really needed at least one of the Promotor and Assessor to be strongly on board to make that work, and probably both. Just getting a win is much less disruptive and much less exploitable, also meaning that people are more likely to cooperate with it. (I also miss being able to win economically; the lack of economic victories is basically forcing people who want to win to do so via scam, whereas when we had a strong economy, it used to be about 50:50 which way I'd win. I've had some thoughts on the economy recently, but decided to leave them aside until the scam was resolved in case people thought they were connected to the scam. Right now, I'm not sure how many shinies I have, but perhaps I'll submit the proposals without pending them and see if anyone likes them.) -- ais523
