acka-research Digest Thursday, January 21 1999 Volume 04 : Issue 016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Duncan Richer Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 4018 Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 03:28:17 -0500 (EST) On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 jtraub@dragoncat.net wrote: > Proposal 4018 > Fresh and Full of Life > IdiotBoy > Due: Tue Jan 26 23:07:39 1999 > > {{Replace all occurances of "Speaker" in the ruleset with "Mentos"}} This would be very confusing for people trying to find their Mentor. Perhaps we should simply replace "Mentor" with "Mentos" throughout. -- Duncan C. Richer aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother | Queens' College http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~dcr24/ Ackanomic | U. of Cambridge Web-Harfer, Clerk of the Court, Map-Harfer, Justice | 2nd Year PhD(PMa) ------------------------------ From: Mueller Subject: Re: Acka: More Reform Suggestions Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 04:13:12 -0500 (EST) JT wrote: >On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Duncan C. "Slakko" Richer wrote: >>What do people think about the following Vote Economy: >> >>Everyone has a Vote Characteristic. Default value is 2. > >Why not start it at 1? > Players who want to focus on something other than direct voting may want to get some cash out of the system. I think it would be good to promote distinct strategies based on the same system... I think that fundamentally, that is how the good kind of complexity rises out of simple rules. >>Players may raise their Vote Characteristic by 1 at a cost of A$3000. >>They may lower their Vote Characteristic by 1 to receive A$2500. > >This strongly favors the players who've been playing longer since they are >the ones who'll be able to up their vote characteristic. After a while >(ie when a number of players have 4 or 5 which will eventually happen) >then new players will wonder why they should even bother as their vote >won't make a signifigant difference. > >While I'm not against a voting economy since I agree that the only thing >upon which 'scarcity' can be implemented really is the ability to propose >and the ability to vote, I do worry that an economy will divide the game >into the haves and the have-nots, and if you become a have-not in nomic, >there is no real way to change that since by being a have-not in a voting >economy, you no longer have the power to change the status quo. > I'm thinking something along the lines of commie tax. Say each solstice or so we determine the average characteristic. Those below get bumped up, and those above get bumped down (unless that would send them all the way to the other side of the range). Say the average is 3.2 3s and 4s stay where they are. Everyone else heads towards 3.2 by one. Studge ------------------------------ From: JT Subject: Re: Acka: More Reform Suggestions Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 04:50:44 -0500 (EST) >I'm thinking something along the lines of commie tax. Say each solstice or >so we determine the average characteristic. Those below get bumped up, and >those above get bumped down (unless that would send them all the way to the >other side of the range). > >Say the average is 3.2 > >3s and 4s stay where they are. Everyone else heads towards 3.2 by one. In a situation like that the A$3000 and A$2500 values are too large (imho). --JT [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ] [ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ] [-------------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ End of acka-research Digest V4 #16 **********************************