Subject: Re: [MacroNomic] Revisions

From: "Henry Towsner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:00:07 PDT

>[snip]I think we should discuss this thoroughly. You overused ideas a 
bit;
>I think they should be limited to the introduction of new things...
>for standard-props if they remain, for papers, for RPGs, but not
>for repeals and reorgs, to keep a balance...
     I was just giving examples, and I agree that we should take our 
time with this.  We'll have to figure out exactly what the catagories 
which need commodities are, and what the costs should be.  However I 
don't think papers should cost commodities.

>If you want full equality, you have to drop the concept of the limit. 
>If you want equality within limits, what about reducing each of us to 
>5 and giving each new player 5 acres as well? Then we'd have room for 
>13 new players, and we all have equal voting - hurray!
     Definately get rid of the limit.

>I have no problems with players gaining or losing acres, but it 
>shouldn't happen too fast. For example you could gain 1 acre from the 
>state if one or more proposals of yours passes unanimously in the 
>previous week, and lose 1 acre if you didn't vote on any proposal in 
>that week.
     Fair enough.  I don't like the penalty for not voting, since 
players who don't vote for a week will have enough problems.  But 1 acre 
for a unanimous proposal sounds fine.  How about 1 acre is given out 
every two weeks on some sort of award basis.  The player who submitted 
the most successful proposals, or the one who gained the most loyalty in 
the last two weeks or something.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

---

From: JT <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 12:10:41 -0700 (PDT)

>     Definately get rid of the limit.

I agree, get rid of the limit, or else make it much larger for the time
being and then re-address it later.

>the last two weeks or something.

I would also like to see wording such that no player may ever manage more
than 40% of the total vote farms currently managed by players. (with
wording to reduce acreage or whatever should the situation occur through a
player leaving or whatever).  The reason for this, is if you award vote
acres, someone who is consistantly a 'good player' could amass a large
quantity of votes and this leads to them amassing more to the point where
they could dictate the course of the game unilaterally.  I'd rather have a
saftey valve in place first that never allows pure dictatorial control.

--JT

[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]
[ Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.                  ]
[ It's hard to seize the day when you must first grapple with the morning ]
[-------------------------------------------------------------------------]