BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

I like the concept but changing votes makes it quite complex…

Noted. If this is defeated I’ll propose another with a clause about that, otherwise, it can just be amended in later: if you vote AGAINST, you can never accept the bribe; if you vote FOR, and later vote AGAINST, you lose the bribe (forever) and no one can take your bribe. Only the first vote affects how many others can take a bribe after you; voting FOR, AGAINST 10 times would only prevent 1 person from taking the bribe, not 10.

I agree with ChinDoGu. Also, there needs to be restrictions on how much total can be offered on a bribe. (a value clearly less than or equal to the amount of TP the Olympian has)

I would need to see a couple of illustrative examples in order to understand how this would work.

This can already be done as part of the proposal itself.

Perhaps, but this would give a solid legal basis for it and remind people that it can be used.

  I like the idea, but I don’t see why a person who votes   loses the next person a bribe.

It doesn’t necessarily, it’s just first come first serve. Let’s say this is my proposal:

New rule: every hour, JoshuaGross receives 5 TP. The first ten people to vote FOR will receive 2 TP from me.

alethiophile: no way (AGAINST)—alethiophile receives nothing, 9 Olympians can receive a bribe now

Bucky: heck yes, I need TP (FOR)—receives 2 TP, 8 Olympians can receive a bribe now