Eh, sort of, yeah.

I just find that it's done via proposal to have a certain mystique to it.
Proposals are the most powerful thing in the game, and you're using game
money, which is comparably worth soooooo muuuuch leeess than the
omnipotence of a proposal, to get a fraction of that omnipotence and
eventually add up enough of it (omnipotence bound to be just a "win"
though, but it's aesthetically cool to me none the less lol).

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Recently, there was a proto submitted based on the PAoaM system where you
> have to destroy a number of the assets to achieving a win. That's
> technically buying a win in the loosest way possible since all the assets
> are defined as currencies.
>
> On Feb 13, 2018 14:12, "Alex Smith" <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 12:04 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > In some ways a win is worth far more (bragging value and permanent
> > record) and
> > in some ways less (if I bribed each person a number of shinies to
> > vote for me
> > to win in a proposal, I bet "buying" a win would be - oh I dunno in
> > the 50-shiny
> > neighborhood or so at a guess).
>
> People ought to buy wins more often. Have we had an outright purchased
> win since proposal 5884? (Even that turned into a mess of scams and
> counterscams with respect to interpretation of the conditional vote
> rules. The win only went through because a significant proportion of
> bribe requests were sufficiently ambiguous that they ended up counting
> as PRESENT rather than AGAINST.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

Reply via email to