I don't believe voting strength affects it. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote: > I consent. Consent has nothing to do with voting strength, yeah? > > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:33 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> I hereby announce intent to award the degree Associate of Nomic to G. >> with 2 Agoran Consent. >> >> ---- >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> >> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> I submit the following document with the explicit intent to qualify for >>> an A.N. >>> (Associate of Nomic) degree. It underwent peer review (was published and >>> received comments) back last July. Edits, notably adding comments from >>> Ørjan, >>> have been added since then (and this formed the seed for discussion of >>> the new >>> economy) - so it is ready for Herald's action. >>> >>> >>> A Multi-Tiered, Multi-Controlled Currency System >>> (a brief thesis by G., for an Agoran A.N. degree) >>> >>> This is an outline of the currency system that was in place when I >>> began (2001) and ran until 2003, a good long time for Agora. It was >>> active and the source of much game play at the time. It was installed >>> before my time, but my understanding is that credit should go to Steve >>> for the major points of this system. >>> >>> The basis of the system was a currency called Stems (from Stem cells). >>> Every player got a basic salary in Stems, and Officers got a higher >>> salary. But the thing about Stems were, they were very limited in >>> use. You couldn't transfer them to anyone else, or buy much with >>> them. They just accumulated. >>> >>> Instead there were three currencies that were useful: >>> Papyrii >>> A single Papyrus made a Proposal distributable. >>> Indulgences >>> Penalties for breaking rules or other judicially-bad things were >>> measured in Blots. Blots gave you game penalties (lowered >>> votes, kept you from winning). An Indulgence would destroy a >>> Blot. >>> Voting Entitlements (VEs) >>> Hold a VE, get an extra proposal vote. Max voting power 5. >>> >>> How did you get these currencies? Each month, an Auction would be >>> held, auctioning off a certain number of each currency. The auction >>> currency was Stems, that was really all you could use them for. >>> >>> Furthermore, each player had a Role. Scribes (papyrus), Acolytes >>> (Indulgences), and Politicians (VEs). Only players holding the >>> correct role could bid on the correct currency. And roles could only >>> be changed once a Quarter, so you had to plan ahead. >>> >>> Additionally, each currency was tied to an Office: the Promotor for >>> papyrus, the Clerk of the Courts (Arbitor) for Indulgences, and the >>> Assessor for VEs. Each Officer could control their own currency >>> supply by deciding (in a fixed range) how much to auction each month, >>> and also had the ability to tax (collect a % of everyone's holdings >>> for that currency). Total circulating currency was fixed; direct >>> creation of currency was tightly-controlled and rare, mostly the >>> currencies circulated between players and a Bank. Power over currency >>> supply made these offices desirable, and elections were actually >>> fought based on monetary policies. >>> >>> Just by the "nature" of play, each currency had a different liquidity. >>> >>> - Papyrus were the bread and butter of activities (in addition to >>> making proposals distributable, you could use them for other >>> parliamentary procedures such as Chambers). Winning at this time >>> was by Points (the original Nomic system), and most of the ways of >>> scoring were voting-related: the old Nomic Prisoner's Dilemma or >>> other scoring rules, which made proposal-manipulation part of the >>> gameplay. >>> >>> - Total VE supply was pegged to the # of players in the game, and >>> permanent votes were powerful. So these became the real estate in >>> the game; precious, commanding high prices at auctions, rarely >>> changing hands. >>> >>> - Indulgences were volatile. The judicial system allowed players to >>> "ticket" each other for minor infractions just by announcement, only >>> needing CFJs if the facts were contested. A day late on a report? >>> Someone gives you a Blot. Sometimes, when players conspired for >>> scams or political plays, all would break the same rule and many >>> would get Blots. Then Indulgences would be priceless. Other times, >>> they were nearly worthless. >>> >>> Some auctions were snoozers. Some were hotly contested. Various >>> features made for occasionally very hotly-contested events (if a >>> player left the game while still having currencies, all their holdings >>> would be auctioned off as a single lot - very very valuable). >>> >>> What made this so successful? Part of it was situational; for various >>> reasons, there were some very hotly debated topics (and long-term >>> rivalries) that made proposal and vote struggles very tense and >>> contested. Second, there were a good 20+ active players, a high point >>> (if you look at "departures in 2001" in the Registrar's report, you >>> see many departures - this was the decay of the 2000-2001 boom). >>> >>> Part is of course my own nostalgia. >>> >>> But I think there were two parts that made the system itself work >>> well. >>> >>> First, this system hit a real sweet spot in decision and contestable >>> "exciting" points. Grind with Stems, make strategic decisions with >>> Roles, play them out with the other currencies. Offices with "power" >>> to set policies that had gameplay impacts. Winning was related, but >>> not the whole purpose of currencies. There was enough variety that >>> each "exciting moment" had a different quality and tactics, but not so >>> many options that we were lost in the weeds. >>> >>> Secondly, as noted by Ørjan, "the three-currency system was also >>> carefully thought out for the purpose of encouraging an economy with >>> meaningful trading - something which we hadn't really managed before. >>> This required making it impossible for a player to alone produce >>> everything e needed, thus both the roles and the three different kind >>> of assets." >>> >>> Finally, I think we had a period of strong stability in the >>> underlying Rules. At the time, we had players both from the computing >>> world, but also a lawyer or two. The Rules interpretations/CFJ tended >>> to be very "practical" (following intent) rather than letting a >>> twisted wording loophole break things (though some true "infinite >>> loops" and other twisty ideas got through and were respected). The >>> stability was such that a whole family of concepts - Debt, Contracts, >>> Bonds - were made privately (and sometimes added with rules) and some >>> holdings built up over the full 2-3 years that the system lasted. >>> >>> All in all, it was a Pretty Good Time in Agora. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>
