Subject: Re: [MacroNomic] Revisions

From: "Henry Towsner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 10:21:50 PDT

>That would be dealing out farms for almost free... unless someone
>votes AGAINST on a RP prop instead of LOYAL e doesn't dislike
>because e wants to prevent farms being dealt out. On the other hand,
>if there is someone who routinely votes AGAINST, no farms ever
>will be dealt out.
     Ah.  Good point.  3 VFs for unanimous proposals.  There should be 
one or two other things though.

>I don't think it would work. If you lose 3 comms when a prop fails,
>but get only one extra if it passes, 75% of your props have to pass
>to let you survive... quite unlikely for a newbie. If you don't 
>discuss them before you propose them, they probably fail since people 
>don't like them, and if you discuss them, someone else might find a 
>tiny mistake in it, make an almost identical prop and run with the 
>rewards. I think one should get one of each comm each week, or more 
>than one comm reward for those who have few comms, or both.
     I don't think we should hand out commodities based on time, but I 
agree that there should be more for new players.  How about at the 
beginning of each week a player who has less than one of each commodity 
gets filled up to one of each unless they trade away commodities during 
the previous week.  It means that you can always make one proposal/week, 
but anything more requires passing proposals.

>On a related point, I think we should either think up a system that
>needs different combinations of propcomms for different tasks
>(e.g. repeals or renumberings need just 1 term, papers 1 idea and
>1 word etc.) or, if we don't want that, dump the whole propcomm
>system.
     Agreed.  How about this:
     All proposals belong to a class.  A "normal" proposal costs one of 
each commodity and can do anything.  A "repealing" proposal costs an 
idea and can only repeal.  A "reorganizing" proposal costs an idea and a 
word and can move things around and can "insert phrases of up to three 
words" in a rule.  It may not insert phrases between phrases already 
insert by the proposal.  There could also be privaleged rules which cost 
more to modify (like repealing the RP).  RPGs could become a class of 
proposal which cannot be voted LOYAL upon and cost a term and an idea.

>On Vote Farms, I think we should keep the 100 acre limit, but change
>the way acres are dealt to new players. I was just going to propose
     I don't like this so much.  I'd rather that new players be given 
equal chance.  Also I think the number of VFs a player has should change 
over time.

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

---

From: Frank Schmidt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 20:21:20 +0200

Henry Towsner:
[snip]

> [more than one comm reward for poor players?] by Ember

Looks good.

> >needs different combinations of propcomms for different tasks

[snip]

> each commodity and can do anything.

[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...

> equal chance.  Also I think the number of VFs a player has should change

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!

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.

Ember