I have to agree with P.S.S. Promotor is already a lot of work, as (I'm
guessing) is Arbitor. I don't want to have to start tracking a part of
the economy in addition to proposals. I'd suggest pragmatising CFJs
and proposals. Make so that if the Arbitor assigns a CFJ, it exists,
with the Arbitor as caller (stops the recurrent "is this even a CFJ"
problem). Then change it so that if the Promotor or Arbitor have no
reason to believe that the pending of a proposal/initiation of a CFJ
failed (someone trying to do a hundred at once would be a pretty
strong clue, for instance) they have one nothing wrong, but the person
who purported to initiate the pend the proposal/initiate the CFJ is
eligible for a blue card. Increase the maximum penalty on a blue card
to two times the profit, to provide a strong incentive to keep track
of your currency totals.

-Aris



On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Why not just have one office for tracking all of them since they interact?
>
> On 11/17/2017 06:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
>>>> * Define three “base” resources, and associated Zmet types. Let’s pretend
>>>> they’re Ores, Fungi, and Chipmunks.
>>>>
>>>> * Define three “refined” resources (G.’s Sports, Coupons, and Widgets), and
>>>> associated Zmet types.
>>>>
>>>> * To produce a Sports using a Zmet, the owner must destroy an Ore and a
>>>> Fungus that they own.
>> My first draft of SimAgora had this kind of scheme, but I thought this many
>> currencies would be a nightmare for recordkeepors.  If I (as Arbitor) have
>> to track several things to know if a CFJ succeeded, it's a bit of a non-
>> starter.  That's why I limited harvests to once/month, and made the
>> recordkeepor of each key currency the office responsible for the action
>> (e.g. Promotor for the currency that pends things).
>>
>> I really like this sort of combo-system as a principle - but what do
>> recordkeepors think?
>>
>>
>
> --
> ----
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
>

Reply via email to