in that sense so is every game mechanic in every game ever created. On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Corona <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, but enacting ribbons that everyone has a roughly equal chance of > winning is kind of "trading wins" > > On 11/22/17, Aris Merchant <[email protected]> wrote: >> What about ribbons? One of those can be one by deceit, but most of >> them are a matter of skill. What about victory elections, or medals of >> honor? None of these are intended to be won by deceit, nor do I think >> the players who enacted them each expected to win by them. >> >> -Aris >> >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Corona <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> I would not vote for such a mechanic unless I estimated, based on past >>> experience, my proposal-voting abilities to be above these of other >>> players. If it turns out a player is capable of voting on more >>> proposals per month than I estimated, they have arguably commited some >>> deceit by not correcting my misconception about their voting ability. >>> (And perhaps by rarely voting on proposals prior to the win mechanic's >>> introduction, even if they had the time and it did not bore them or >>> anything) >>> >>> On 11/22/17, Alexis Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> That's not true at all. Many meaningful win mechanics are as those in >>>> other >>>> games: the person who does best at something. For instance, we could >>>> decide >>>> to award a win to the player who votes on the most proposals in a month; >>>> no >>>> deceit is necessary for the competition. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017, 17:29 Corona, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Indeed, if one is not willing to participate in the questionable >>>>> practice of trading wins (I'll support your proposal to award yourself >>>>> a win if you support mine), every win in nomics must involve some >>>>> level of deceit, as one can't force a win, or offer anything less than >>>>> a win for a win, as 'wins' are the most valuable 'asset'. >>>>> >>>>> On 11/22/17, ATMunn <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > Yes, me neither, I don't like the idea of breaking the rules just to >>>>> prevent >>>>> > a win. A win is a win, and if someone wins because of a scam, so >>>>> > what? >>>>> They >>>>> > become the Speaker, and the game moves on. >>>>> > >>>>> > On 11/22/2017 3:44 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >>>>> >> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 20:39 +0000, Alexis Hunt wrote: >>>>> >>> Ahh, hmm, I think that might work provided we can get a non-player >>>>> >>> to >>>>> >>> call sufficient CFJs. Given the volume we couldn't do it with >>>>> >>> Shinies >>>>> >>> alone. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I can do 5, but am unwilling to violate the rules as part of a >>>>> >> counterscam. (Also, I haven't thought of good topics for them yet.) >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>
-- >From V.J. Rada
