On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 21:53 +0000, Quazie wrote: >> I thought the whole point of a proposal competition was to distribute a >> bunch of proposals without paying for them. Proposal competitions are >> apparently useless - darn. > > IIRC, the pending system worked rather differently when we invented > proposal competitions.
Yeah. For everyone who doesn't know, we didn't have an economy until December. > I'm starting to get the impression that basing an economy on proposal > pending never works. Sometimes, distributing a proposal is part of a > scam, and thus worth paying for / fighting over. However, the majority > of proposals are intended to be "for the good of Agora" type things > which give no benefit to the proposer over what they give to Agora as a > whole. Asking people for payment for those seems backwards; rather, we > should be /rewarding/ people for them. Agreed. > Proto: the pender of a proposal and the submitter must be different > people. When a proposal is pended, the pender gains some fraction of > the pend fee. (In my experience, preventing people from doing something > for themselves has been the most reliable way of getting people to do > it for each other.) I like this idea. Do you mean the submitter gets part of the pend fee? Also, this would be a great time to bring back some free pends for the Promotor, as an emergency measure and/or a public service. -Aris On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2017-06-05 at 21:53 +0000, Quazie wrote: >> I thought the whole point of a proposal competition was to distribute a >> bunch of proposals without paying for them. Proposal competitions are >> apparently useless - darn. > > IIRC, the pending system worked rather differently when we invented > proposal competitions. > > I'm starting to get the impression that basing an economy on proposal > pending never works. Sometimes, distributing a proposal is part of a > scam, and thus worth paying for / fighting over. However, the majority > of proposals are intended to be "for the good of Agora" type things > which give no benefit to the proposer over what they give to Agora as a > whole. Asking people for payment for those seems backwards; rather, we > should be /rewarding/ people for them. > > Proto: the pender of a proposal and the submitter must be different > people. When a proposal is pended, the pender gains some fraction of > the pend fee. (In my experience, preventing people from doing something > for themselves has been the most reliable way of getting people to do > it for each other.) > > -- > ais523
