I think we're saying the same thing here - you were talking about an "Effective counterscam", I was saying why bother, and you replied why bother :)
Anyway, the best "counterscam" is probably to put out a retroactive proposal "any without objection action that was performed less than 4 days after intent is hereby nullified" or something like that, maybe for protection putting that in a temporary rule. Though of course *blocking* rule changes via ratification of votes is still possible so that's not guaranteed - basically the fix needs to be unanimous (or "without objection" in the metagame sense). In terms of "worth it", probably black ribbons are worth it, as things like this are the only legit way to get one (arguably in "honorable" play, that's only legit for the scam originator - maybe give me one in the fix proposal). On Thu, 3 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 11:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Is anything worth aiming for when anyone can ratify anything by > > announcement? > > RWO explicitly can't change the ruleset. That makes it difficult to do > irreversible damage to the gamestate with it, even if it's possible to > RWO arbitrary documents without oversight. > > So what gain would you get from a scam like that? Sure, you could get a > win, but (assuming the scam works) everyone's won like that so such a > win isn't interesting or worth aiming for. You could try to get an > economic advantage, but the other players would likely see it as being > in bad faith and reverse it by proposal (or by ratification!) once the > ruleset was fixed. You could attempt to take a dictatorship and lock > out other players from interfering, but without the ability to change > the rules, doing so would be very difficult (and also highly unpopular > among the playerbase as a whole; given that it'd probably involve an > attempt to deregister everyone else, you might well get ostracised for > it, and I don't think the risk of attempting it would be worth the > likely possibility of a successful counterscam). > > I'd have attempted to use the scam to close itself if I could think of > a way to do so (either it fails, no big deal, nothing happens; or it > succeeds and thus there isn't a scam now), but I don't think there is a > way to use the scam to close itself; it's just not powerful enough. As > a side effect, this also means that the scam probably isn't powerful > enough to do any real lasting damage, and using it to do temporary > damage wouldn't gain an advantage (and would likely gain a disadvantage > from the other players' reactions to such an action).
