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 >