You have my support, anyway.
On 7/5/2018 2:59 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Unless a consensus forms one way or the other, I'll implement your
paper removal suggestion in a separate proposal contingent on this one
passing.
As for the economic argument, I disagree, for reasons I really should
have spelled out when submitting the proposal. The problem isn't that
people don't have enough paper. The problem is that people have to use
paper in the first place. When an action has a cost, someone is much
less likely to take it, even if the cost is actually relatively minor.
[1] [2] Every time I write a proposal, I think "Is this really worth
one of my two monthly papers?" I would write many more proposals if
that thought didn't enter my head. IIRC V.J. Rada has also mentioned
this problem. Look at CFJ calling rates before and after they became
free. I'll bet that they skyrocketed; I certainly know I've called
many more CFJs recently. A player shouldn't even have to think about a
cost when they pend a proposal. The limit of five isn't much of an
inconvenience, because a) it's huge; b) it resets every week; c) the
Promotor or another player can always pend a proposal for you, and has
every incentive to do so (right now it's pretty much charity if
someone does that); and d) it's not phrased as an economic cost. The
combination of those factors means that it feels less like a price,
and more like a tacked on limitation, which I for one would not
regularly worry about.
I hope that my explanation and two proposal solution might be enough
to convince you to at least vote PRESENT?
-Aris
[1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bestiary_of_Behavioral_Economics/Zero_Price
[2]
https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/zero-price-effect/
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 11:21 PM Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
This would be fine but it completely nullifies paper. A better way to do
this while preserving the economy would be to get rid of paper and looms
then add lumber to the list of unrefinable resources. Also, everyone gets
paper once a month so participation in the economy is completely optional
still. And if anyone somehow uses up all their paper, I can just give you
some. Though that's not going to happen anytime soon because paper is being
consumed slower than it's being produced. All in all, there are quite a few
things wrong with this proposal that would prevent me from voting for it.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 23:58 Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I've gotten sick and tired of restrictions being placed on gameplay to
force people into economies. I have no objection to the economy
affecting ordinary play, but it should be truly optional. I love how
these days people CFJ whenever they have a concern, without worrying
about it cutting into their reserves. Proposals are a contribution to
the game. Most of them try to make gameplay better for everyone. We
should not discourage people from contributing; if anything, we should
reward them.
This is deliberately minimal. I'm leaving paper in place to allow it
to be repurposed for something else. People should not spam proposals,
so my proposals allows five pends per week. The Promotor gets another
five for other people's proposals, on the assumption that e will use
them to pend proposals that players have forgotten to pend, or if
another player legitimately bumps into eir cap.
I submit the following proposal. I'm going to pend it unless someone
finds a technical problem, or we decide on a better solution to the
paper situation.
-Aris
---
Title: Free Proposals
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors:
Change Rule 2445, "How to Pend a Proposal", to read in full:
Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by
proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or
"not pending" (default).
Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending"
by announcement, but cannot use this method more than five times
each week. The first five proposals pended by the Promotor of which e
is not the author do not count against eir weekly limit.
