On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: > > > > Take the Influence Level associated with the player's position > > > > on the list of succession at the beginning of this week, or 5 > > > > if the player is the Speaker. > > > > > > > > [It would be much easier to track then and it should avoid most timing > > > > scams.] > > > > > > It would not alleviate timing scams in the slightest. Just do it before > > > the > > > Sunday during the voting period of the decision, rather than before the > > > end > > > of the voting period. > > > > Woulsn't it remove the Assessor's ability to influence timing scams, > > by making eir choice of when to resolve the decision meaningless for > > this prupose? > > > It's already meaningless. Voting limits are locked at the end of the voting > period.
Some history: For some time period (2001-2004?) voting limits were set at the beginning of the week, like this Proposal has it, which led to gameplay on Sundays (if everyone can do it, it's not a scam, it's gameplay). At another time, it was locked at the beginning of the voting period, giving some power to the Promotor. Doing it upon resolution, of course, gives the power to the Assessor. Locking it at the end of the voting period as now is similar to locking it at the beginning of the week, except that if someone pulls a last-minute spend, there's no time for others to respond (by for example trying to veto proposals or start an emergency session). Giving people time to respond improved gameplay IMO. I think locking it at the beginning of the week fits the current erg model, as it gives someplace else to bank ergs at the end of the week, and again may bring vetoes or emergency sessions into gameplay more. -G.
