Overall I like the idea; however, my only concern is with my new Medals of Honour proposal I'm working on (and planning on publishing tonight).
If you haven't read the proto, basically it says that in the first week of every month, anyone can declare emself to be eligible for a Medal of Honour. After that, then there's an Agoran Decision on which of the eligible players will receive a Medal of Honour. If any player ever gets 6 Medals of Honour, e can win the game. The reason why they're called Medals of Honour is because in order to declare yourself eligible for one, you have to have not received any cards in the last month, and you can't have negative Karma. I feel that this might sort of conflict with this idea of randomly deciding who to lose Karma each week, as it's basically randomly denying someone of the possibility of getting a medal. However, that issue might only be a problem right now, since most people are at 0 karma, and so only need to lose 1 to go negative. Over time, as you said, everybody's karma will probably even out and (roughly) reflect everyone's behavior. So it's probably fine. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > So, as Herald, I feel a duty to encourage Karma by posting Notices of > Honour at the specified rate (weekly). The last two weeks, I've felt > good about the positive karma, but I was stretching for "negative" > reasons to ding people and it made it seem I was more annoyed at a > negative thing than I actually was. And making myself the loser (if I'm > the leading karmainator) is not sustainable. > > So, my idea, to encourage the positive, is that unless I see behavior > that I think *really* deserves censure, I'm going to choose the loser > randomly each week and choose the gainer based on positive play. (Not > a pledge because I want to be flexible if it doesn't work out). > > Musing thought: If everyone does likewise (and frequently enough), the > scores will (on average, over time) reflect everyone's relative positive > contribution without focusing on the negative. > > Comments welcome... > > > >
