Re: Proposal #121
However, none of those proposals were made in an environment that rewarded being one of the only two people to vote in favor of a proposal. I see this proposal as creating a variation of the classic "Prisoner's Dilemma" from game theory:
If a lot of people vote "Yes", the proposal passes, and nobody gets rewarded (other than by virtue of having potentially made the game more interesting).
If 3 or more vote yes, but not enough to make it pass (4 or 5 seems to be the usual "tipping point" for passage), then the proposer gets rewarded for coming up with a proposal that was almost, but not-quite, compelling enough to pass.
If only 1 or 2 people vote in favor of the proposal, then the proposer gets penalized, but he can mitigate his own maximum loss by always supporting his own proposals.
If nobody votes for a proposal, all that the proposer loses is time.
Basically, this proposal gives voters a way to engage in a little bit of strategizing about how to cast their votes, without incentivizing them to abstain, which is essentially what the Gamble option does. I'm more than a bit tired of seeing good proposals get killed by having too many people betting that they will pass.
Also, if a proposal "just misses" due to too many gambles, it's likely to net the proposer a bit of cash for his trouble, as a consolation prize.
Replies