Subject: point taken

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@b...>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:01:12 -0000

I would like to begin discussion on two matters relating to Points, 
as mentioned in Rules 10 and 12. I should, in the imitation of one 
revered ecomonist, like to avoid any intimation of inflation, and I 
would like to offer for discussion that all numbers of points in the 
Rule-Set be divided by 5. or 2 if there are great objections. I would 
also like to have these points renamed "Greenspans".

I apologize to Gallavanting Tripper for any perceived american-
centricity in the above. Then again, what is the name of the 
Australian currency?

-Oloros

---

From: Xylen <mctupper@h...>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:27:53 -0600

> also like to have these points renamed "Greenspans".

When I went thru the Suber rules, I removed the winning condition of
collecting points. I left points in to be used as a sort of currency or
something. Although the most common use for points is currency, we
could decide to use them more as a score.

As currency, points could be used to buy vetoes, extra votes, or other
things. As a score, they would be used for senority, or other game
ability ratings. It all depends on what we want to do with them.
Personally, I am in favor of using them as currency, and developing
other methods for game ratings. As such, does it really make a
difference whether we get 10 points for passing a proposal or 5.00
Greenspans? They are just numbers. It is how the use of the
currency changes that we need to be concerned with. For example, is a
false accusation really twice as bad a making a bad proposal, or should
it be half as bad? The real question isn't the point values, but the
relative value of the offense.

Unless it gets to be a problem for writing it out, (I have 100000 points
not 10000) I don't see why reducing the value will actually change
anything.

Actually, I also was thinking of another way to use points. Mostly as
part of a sub-game. Points can be used to define lines, planes and
dimensions. As a player gains points, they can add to their description
of a nomic-geometry figure. If they lose points, then part of their
figure dissapears. With enough points a player can draw some
complicated figures, and even define local geometry rules for their
muti-dimensional space. Just a random thought, but it treats points
in a manner different than the usual interpretation.

Xylen
-- 
Email is packaged by intellectual weight, not volume. Some settling of
contents may have occurred during transmission.

---

From: "Oloros the Blue" <oloros@b...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:30:49 -0000

--- In [email-masked], Xylen <mctupper@h...> wrote:
>
> The real question isn't the point values, but the
> I don't see why reducing the value will actually change
> anything.
> 
Relative values. Of course economics is all smoke and mirrors, 
dependent upon the appearance of market forces, which generate market 
forces, which, in turn, generate.. anyway. Then again, maybe the meta-
game should award more points than any aspect of a sub-game.

>
> Actually, I also was thinking of another way to use points. 
> Mostly as part of a sub-game. Points can be used to define lines,
> planes and dimensions. As a player gains points, they can add 
> to their description of a nomic-geometry figure. If they lose 
> points, then part of their figure disapears. With enough points
> a player can draw some complicated figures, and even define local
> geometry rules for their multi-dimensional space. Just a random 
> thought, but it treats points in a manner different than the 
> usual interpretation.
> 
Wow. I thought that I had predilictions for complicated sub-games. I 
enjoy the pun. Perhaps the midway between this idea and my feelings 
on devaluation would be to have multiple denominations of a currency 
that can be traded for Points: 4 points equals 1 square or 1 
tetrahedron, 6 points equals 1 hexagon or 1 triangular prism, 8 
points equals 1 octagon or a cube; currencies cannot be traded 
between dimensions, or can at great cost (6 squares equals 1 cube), 
but each dimensional type is uniquely valuable, or applicable to a 
single sub-game. 

-Oloros, "I don't know, I never went to Burger King."

---

From: Xylen <mctupper@h...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:44:08 -0600

> but each dimensional type is uniquely valuable, or applicable to a 

I like that idea. It keeps my pun on points, and seems to solve your
inflantion worries. We could use the 2-D currency for sub-games that
don't require a lot of points and the 3-D for games requireing more.
For a really complicated game, we could have X-D currencies. Looks
like a good idea for starting proposal or two.

2-dimensional Currency:
1 point = 1 point
2 points = 1 line
3 points = 1 triangle
4 points = 1 square
5 points = 1 pentagon
6 points = 1 hexagon

3-dimensional currency
1 point = 1 point
2 points = 1 line
3 points = 1 plane
4 points = 1 tetrahedron
6 points = 1 triangular prism
8 points = 1 cube

Xylen