On Jun 20, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
On 6/20/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Frankly, it's far more of an abuse that a single natural player can
accumulate 13x (or arbitrarily more) base voting power on
something through
free submission of trivial fix proposals. That's more of a chilling
effect on voting than partnership VC spending is. The correct
system
should be an absolute cap, or a progressive cost (Cost of increasing
VPOP by one is proportional to VPOP to some power greater than 0).
Yes, that's something else I've been meaning to reform. We had a
similar problem when Quazie first registered and started submitting
scads of proposals (though in Quazie's case e merely got obscenely
wealthy). We fixed the issue then, and it's hard to believe we've
fallen back into that trap so soon thereafter.
This *almost* asks for a return of Disinterested proposals, probably
better implemented in the current game state as Unanimous Consent:
An AI-1 proposal that passes if nobody votes against it, but doesn't
gain VCs.
When I introduced VCs, my main intent was to revitalize the game. I
never dreamed I'd succeed so dramatically.
-----
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
