acka-research Digest Monday, November 30 1998 Volume 03 : Issue 284 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Making harfers earn their salaries From: alfvaen@connect.ab.ca (Aaron V. Humphrey) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 00:37:13 -0500 (EST) > As you can see, this is very rough right now, but if people think it's a > really horrid idea, or a really good one, or have ideas on other > functional offices and duties which could be payed for, I'd be happy to > hear it. I personally would not want to be the person tracking all this, and am wary of increasing Officers' workloads, having been a victim of Multi- Office Burnout myself. So I would be cautious about implementing too much, and frankly would probably vote against it were it proposed. -- --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ ) Current Song--Local Rabbits:This Lengthy Glance Current Book--John D. Fitzgerald:The Great Brain I need something to take for my kleptomania. ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Making harfers earn their salaries Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 00:49:23 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote: >> As you can see, this is very rough right now, but if people think it's a >> really horrid idea, or a really good one, or have ideas on other >> functional offices and duties which could be payed for, I'd be happy to >> hear it. > >I personally would not want to be the person tracking all this, and am >wary of increasing Officers' workloads, having been a victim of Multi- >Office Burnout myself. So I would be cautious about implementing too >much, and frankly would probably vote against it were it proposed. Hmm.. The intent was to charge for things that are basically charged for now but just give some 'kickback' back to the officers who had to track those things. However, I had also considered instituting costs for some other things, and you might be right about that being harder (especially on the financier). (See, this is why it's an RFC not an actual prop :) --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ From: John Frederic Mc Coy Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Making Harfers earn their salaries Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:58:45 -0500 (EST) On Sun, 29 Nov 1998, JT wrote: > This is something that was wandering through my mind this evening and I > am wondering what people think of the idea. > > The idea here is that instead of paying functional officers a flat salary > we could pay them a certain amount for services rendered. > > For instance, when a proposal is submitted, and distributed, the submitter > pays a filing fee of A$10 (for example) to the treasury. The treasury > then pays the promotor A$2. When results on that proposal are > distributed, the tabulator is payed A$2 as well. I am absolutely against any fees for submiting proposals. > > When a player changes their name, the SHF is payed to the treasury, and > the registrar and the financier are payed 1/5 of the SHF. > OK, I guess. > When a player creates a trinket, they pay A$10 to the treasury PER > trinket. The Trinket Harfer and the Financier each get A$2. (yes, this > also makes trinket arrays and low-valued trinkets less financially > feasible) I would think that this would make trinkets of any kind less financially feasible. I would hardly see the point of having them anymore if we were to use this system. I really don't like this idea. We would essentially be paying the Trinket-Harfer and the Financier more money for less work. Assuming, of course, that the voulme of trinkets doesn't drop so low that there is no longer any real justification for the Trinket-Harfer office at all. > > Some functional offices, such as Rule-Harfer, Web-Harfer, and Speaker do > not really have 'taxable' duties and so remain on a salary. Perhaps that > salary should be raised slightly (or perhaps the above salaries are too > much) > Well, as a student of history I can say that paying "government" officials by the task tends to corrupt the system... but I don't really think that would happen here. So I suppose I don't have anything against the idea of giving officers a cut of the Standard Harfer Fees that are paid for tasks they must complete. What I dislike, strongly dislike, about this RFC are the entirely new fees that you are proposing we establish to pay the Promoter and the Trinket Harfer etc. A$10 isn't a fortune by any means, but it adds up quickly. If in the course of a month, I, say created three A$1 value trinkets, submited 10 proposals, and changed my name once, I'd be out A$158. And unless I held several functional offices, it is highly unlikely I would earn back so much as a fifth of what I'd spent. Money would quickly accumulate in the hands of the officers, and as the rules stand now there would be very little way for other players to get some back. If this RFC were accepted as a proposal, I would expect the majority of Players to be broke, or nearly so, within 3 or 4 months. > As you can see, this is very rough right now, but if people think it's a > really horrid idea, or a really good one, or have ideas on other > functional offices and duties which could be payed for, I'd be happy to > hear it. > I would be happy to vote for a straight pay raise for the harfers, but one that comes from the Treasury, not everyone else's pockets. Vynd jmccoy@umich.edu > --JT > > [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] > [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] > [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] > [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] > > ------------------------------ From: John Frederic Mc Coy Subject: Re: Acka: RFC: Making harfers earn their salaries Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 13:01:51 -0500 (EST) On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote: > > > As you can see, this is very rough right now, but if people think it's a > > really horrid idea, or a really good one, or have ideas on other > > functional offices and duties which could be payed for, I'd be happy to > > hear it. > > I personally would not want to be the person tracking all this, and am > wary of increasing Officers' workloads, having been a victim of Multi- > Office Burnout myself. So I would be cautious about implementing too > much, and frankly would probably vote against it were it proposed. > Alfvaen makes an interesting point here. Every new fee and salary we introduce will be one more piece of data that the Financier has to track. Vynd jmccoy@umich.edu > > -- > --Alfvaen(Web page: http://www.connect.ab.ca/~alfvaen/ ) > Current Song--Local Rabbits:This Lengthy Glance > Current Book--John D. Fitzgerald:The Great Brain > I need something to take for my kleptomania. > ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V3 #284 ***********************************