On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > I think this is too harsh and also too permissive. Most often, this > will happen by mistake, and if pointed out within a few days, it's better > to just call it a null-op. It's too permissive in that, if at any time > we count on high fees to prevent a power-play (which is desirable), then > anyone can still make the power play at the cost of resistors. > > This really just makes resistors into a debt/credit instrument with > interest. Which is ok, but if that's what you want, you need to develop a > full system checks and balances that's beyond the scope of the first > simplifying proposal IMO. > > -G.
The plan with the permissiveness is that it's also explicitly illegal to perform an action that leads to Resistors, meaning that a criminal case can be initiated against them in case it is used for/against a power play illegally. I think most Agorans will be deterred by a rule explicitly against that, as I was with my deregister-everyone scam (which, by the way, I never really considered pulling off. I just wanted to see if I could squeak a dictatorship in by fiat). As for the harshness, I agree more or less; I was just looking for some penalty that had meaning but was easy to track. Also, I'm not sure quite how often accidental erg overdraws will occur, given that they reset each week. It may not be worth penalizing automatically. -coppro
