Extra vote power can easily be weaponized to immediately win a dynasty. (It’s how https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=The_Second_Dynasty_of_Pokes got won, anyways)

I’m with you on the motivations, but voting tokens feel like a very risky currency to be handing out. I think I’d rather keep it ungamified and just have a Recruitment Drive klaxon that we can agree to sound, at which point players are encouraged to promote the game to their friends, or coax back any idle players they’re still in touch with.

(At minimum I think we need a cap on “If they name a specific other idle or non-idle Individual” here, so that a new player can’t name two others - two players with a voting token each are enough to reach quorum against the wishes of all other players.)

A voting token Ponzi scheme would make for a fun one-off dynasty, but I don’t think I’d want it hanging over the game constantly.

The winning Proposal that got forced in via voting power screwing, btw: https://blognomic.com/archive/western_coup_v2_un_resolution_victory

This proposal only allows you to use one extra vote per proposal. If you can coordinate enough idle players to get quorum then you deserve it

@Kevan I amended to limit beneficiaries of referral awards.

[Josh] Good to see the limit.

But even with that, you’d only need to coordinate one idle player, wouldn’t you? I ask a friend to join, they join, quorum remains 4. We both get one Boost token. We now have 4 votes weight on any proposal, which is enough to get an “I win” enacted.

But like… if this gets passed now as it is, you’d only really need one person to unidle to be able to pass anything you want (with 7 players, Quorum is 4, and you’d have 2 players, with their 2 extra votes, and are able to pass whatever you want).

I mean, I dunno man, I might be wrong but it really seems like proposing omnipotent scams is a common thing for you to do from my perspective and given what has happened:
- Gin/Googles Scam
- Red Notice Protocol Inscribing Scam
- Now this?

@Cuddlebeam Core rules scans are covered by fair play. Understood that this is Special Case, not Core, but I do tend to think that non-dynastic rule scams are boring. This isn’t really even a scam so much as the overt intended use of the proposal. There’s not really a trick or deceit at work here.

@Kevan Yes, I suppose it’s much more powerful while there’s very few players, but the idea is that it’s an ability whose usefulness ratchets down as it becomes less necessary. The thing is that with numbers this small, I Win proposal scans are actually pretty trivial to engineer - Cuddlebeam has effectively been begging me to sign up to one for weeks - but in the long term, low player numbers are a bigger risk. This might not be the exact right way to go about fixing it but there’s very few other ways to put together a persistent reward that’s applicable across dynasties, and I don’t think that an “everybody go proselytise” mechanic without some material benefit would be as effective.

Can I still edit this post? How about if the bonus blues couldn’t be used if quorum was before a threshold?

You have 2 hours to do whatever you want, which is why I haven’t voted yet (I mean, I could, but I don’t want to be an ass here)

Ah, thanks.

I’ve added a quorum floor to the use of boosts.

Yeah, there’s a two-hour editing window these days, if nobody’s voted yet (“An official post may be altered by its author if it is less than two hours old and either no Individual has commented on it or (if it is a Votable Matter) if all comments on it contain no voting icons”).

I’m not feeling that excited by bonus votes as a currency, though. At the top end they’re game-breaking, at the bottom end they don’t feel that big a deal (I can break a tie on a controversial proposal I liked and others didn’t, but I can do that anyway by proposing an iteration of it). I’m not sure there’s much middle ground.

I think a recruited player is its own reward, really. If I get a friend playing the game, they’ll slightly favour my proposals over those of a stranger, I can probably persuade them to team up on a game plan, and so on.

Fair play also rules out Special Case scams, by the way. But yes, I’d also agree that using this mechanic to force a proposal through wouldn’t be considered scamming.

@Kevan Fair enough - of the question is what kind of incentive is best for the game here then I think we just disagree - but I would be interested in seeing your proposal also ☺️

I’ll have a think.

I think even the quorum-5 limit isn’t enough here: this just sets a minimum cabal size of three, where the third person doesn’t even need to get a token. That’s just two players teaming up to recruit a third.

in addition to the other comments, I’m not in favor of using emojis outside of the dynastic rules because they are somewhat unpredictable in how they display