comex wrote: > The higher the Score Index, as a score winner, you start more and more > behind everyone else in the next "game", ergo less incentive to get > points.
Whereas, the lower the Score Index, once someone is close to winning, everyone else has less incentive to get points until after the win. > Even if a high Score Index made wins more frequent, that's months > instead of months. In comparison, if you'll recall summaries.txt, the > original Nomic World had the "endless" game 6 end within a year. I'm > sure someone with a longer memory than I can remember the last time > score became important in Agora. The last few non-scam points wins were in late 2003 to mid-2004, though those involved grouping the players into four teams. Non-scam individual points wins occurred twice in 2002, once in 2001, once in 1998, and the record gets fuzzy after that. > I mean, what do we have now? > In contests: Pens. Vote Points. FAP. As well as any number of types > of point vouchers. > In the rules: Notes. Ribbons. Notes are geared toward increased voting clout; the ability to win that way is rather remote, absent a scam. > Why do we keep reinventing the wheel? It's one thing to have a > spendable currency, it's another to neglect Points as some old relic > which, given what root said about the number of active contests, can > only really be earned one way at any point in time. Probably because we enjoy the reinvention process.
