Actually, this probably should have been called a short term economic reform plan, given that it would take place over a month at maximum. Oh well.
-Aris On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 10:56 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Okay, I've had an idea. There's a sequence of changes to the current > economy that would end up with us still having land, but also adopting > G.'s point-based model. However, the sequence of operations is too > complex to be done in one go, so we're going to need to do this over > several weeks. Please note that this is a bit on the long side, and > there is a request for comments at the end. > > May I present the Revised Massive Reform Plan™: > > Sequence of Operations: > 1. Execute "Crackdown on minting (reindustrialisation edition)" > 2. Make steel replace coins in all facility roles they currently > serve. We can diversify this by adding in coal and/or glass later. > 3. Execute "Separation of church and state" > 4. Execute "From each according to eir means", or some variant thereof. > 5. Execute what I'm tentatively calling the "Point Installation Act". > This would replace all uses of coins (but not steel), so we would have > points as the base currency and everything else as a derived > mini-game. > 6. Create a win condition based on the economic currencies. > > Proposed Timetable > * 1-3 should be done this week. This sets everything up, without > changing too many things at once. > * 4-5 should be done next week. If we go through with this plan, we > shouldn't do 4 until we're ready to do 5. It should logically be done > right before 5, as that's the major switch, and we can't really do it > twice. twg, this means that I am asking you to consider pulling "From > each according to eir means" from this weeks distribution. > * 6 can be done next week or the week after that. The reason it has to > be done soon is that if 1-5 happen, but 6 doesn't there will be no > point in continuing land. I'd suggest something built on G.'s three > asset plan, but that's something we can figure out later. > > Benefits: > [You can skip this section if you already agree and/or you don't want > want to listen to me ramble] > > 1. It creates a strict hierarchy of gameplay. > > Base -> Points -> Land > Fig 1 > > This means that each level of the hierarchy of the hierarchy is > allowed to affect the next one, but not the other way around. Points > turn into the base currency used for most operations. Land represents > the advanced level where the previous levels can be translated into a > win. However, no one is forced to participate at a higher level than > they want to, which removes the problem of people being annoyed > because most gameplay is disrupted by economic problems. Instead, we > have isolation, the same way in a computer there's the kernel, then > the OS, and then user programs (yes, a massive oversimplification, but > you get the point). > > 2. It gives land an end purpose, something it is currently lacking. At > the end of this process, people would be able to use land to win the > game. > > 3. It maintains a UNIX proposal system, where each one of the 6 > proposals does it's own small, clean change. > > 4. It incidentally switches the Land level of the economy to the > industrial era (steel, coal and glass if those happen, and no > temples). > > Risks: > > Okay, there's only one real risk here, but it's kind of a compound > problem. Basically, it has to do with the fact that we'd be cutting > this up into 6 proposals. There is a serious risk that one of the > proposals will fail. 3 can fail without causing a big problem, > although I hope it doesn't, as there's reasonably widespread support > for it. 4 can also fail, although that would unbalance the new economy > for a while. 6 could fail, but that would make land pointless. 1, 2, > and 5 are critical for this process. 3, 4, and 6 are still important, > but not essential. If any one of the critical items doesn't go > through, and we can't fix it, then the entire plan fails. > > twg has already written the proposals for 1, 3, and 4. I am prepared > to write 2, 5 if things are going well, and maybe 6. > > I hope I can get widespread buy-in for this. I'm combining twg's ideas > with those of G. Because this keeps most of our economy in place, > while still reforming it, I hope I can get both the "reform party" and > the "land party" to vote for it. However, I'd like better statistics > on how people are likely to vote. Does this proposal seem like a good > idea? > > -Aris >
