I have an idea for making goods which is bouncing around in my mind, but I haven't the time to sit down and write it out. It'd also be my first proposal, so I'm a bit apprehensive at throwing it out into the wild without double-checking some basic things first.
天火狐 On 23 September 2017 at 19:01, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think we need to encourage spending. People ignore the current > agoran economy too much. People don't ignore the real economy because > they need to eat. My vision is to have it be completely impossible to > meaningfully participate without paying for it, thus forcing economic > participation. > > I also think we need inflation to match new players coming in. And we > need more incentivisation of inter-player spending, rather than just > player-agora spending. The few businesses people have set up right now > (Celestial Fire-Fox's vote-buying thing for example) just aren't being > used. > > On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > There's two separate issues: > > > > 1. How fast should a brand new player be able to catch up with an old > player; > > > > 2. How much consistent advantage should an officer have over a > non-officer. > > > > It's confounded because most old players are officers, but given the > welcome > > package I think it's mostly a problem of (2) not (1). > > > > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote: > >> On 09/23/2017 04:47 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > >> I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how > much time the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will > achieve a win (or dictatorship) given their join date. > >> > >> If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at the > start than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on that > front). For example, the case where the total capital > >> of all active players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome > Pack), grows over time. > >> > >> > >> New players shouldn't have such a handicap that they overcome > consistently good play from existing players. And the stamp win isn't > restricted to one-time. New players can still win with as much work as > >> old players, but the old players have a lead by virtue of starting > sooner. > >> > >> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently > gerontocratic system. > >> > It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary > allocation. > >> > >> Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some > broad thoughts. > >> > >> I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of > Economies and > >> think of it in terms of Game Design. > >> > >> On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset > growth. Base > >> assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster > (I'm > >> particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here). This can > be very > >> fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties > start *really* > >> producing. But the problem is that it leads to early > determination of > >> winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a > frustrating > >> slog for the losers. In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real > life), this is > >> the gerontocracy. > >> > >> It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of > valuable assets > >> is via Auction. Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight > lead in > >> your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset). > Moreover, > >> right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have > to compete > >> directly with the gerontocracy to buy in. My main reason to > hoard right now > >> is to have any chance in an auction. > >> > >> I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically > reducing the > >> buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased > land). > >> > >> On the spending side: quite frankly, we don't have enough > diversity of > >> things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on. > We need > >> to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization. > >> > >> There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy. I > personally would > >> add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic > system, and > >> simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about > last week. > >> This would be entirely separate from land. (there are other > things we could > >> invent to buy, this is one obvious addition). I'd also think > about specialized > >> roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't > easily change > >> whether you're a farmer or not). > >> > >> The total portfolio of things to buy should have a unified game > balance and > >> different pathways to riches/success, and not just be a grab bag > of random > >> investment instruments (e.g. stamps, bonds, whatever). > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
