On 1/23/2022 1:56 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 1/23/22 16:53, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Sun, 2022-01-23 at 13:49 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >>> * Having submitted an unconditional ballot AGAINST a referendum to >>> adopt a sponsored proposal, provided that the ballot is valid at >>> the time the referendum is assessed, and provided that the outcome >>> of that assessment is ADOPTED: points equal to the voting >>> player's voting strength on the referendum (Assessor). >> This is inherently prone to timing scams – it gives an incentive to >> change your vote to AGAINST at the very last moment, as long as the >> proposal would still pass regardless. >> > > (Joke) solution: the proposal says "change that player's score by the > indicated amount of points", not "increment that player's score", so > I'll use my discretion in the direction of change to punish people who > do that. >
lol, I wrestled back in forth on whether I needed to say "positive unless included otherwise" but then decided that a cfj would likely find "change N by X" to be addition (and the sign of X is positive if not explicitly negative of course). I suppose I should have used "add" which would have had the same effect and been more explicit. On 1/23/2022 1:53 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > This is inherently prone to timing scams – it gives an incentive to > change your vote to AGAINST at the very last moment, as long as the > proposal would still pass regardless. Yup, and if more than one person have that idea and all change at about the same time, the proposal might fail - that's part of the fun of it... (at least, that strategy was by design in my mind, it's possible of course that it wouldn't end up being fun). -G.
