Thanks for the comments.
On 9/9/19 6:45 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 9/9/19 6:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Create a new rule with title "Cheques", power 2, and text:
Cheques are entities. Each cheque is associated with an interest
group. Cheques associated with the same interest group are
fungible, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Their
recordkeepor is the Treasuror.
Why not make it an asset? That would give cheques an owner, which I
think is what you want.
I'm sure there was a draft where they were assets but I changed it for
some silly reason.
Create a new rule with title "Balancing", power 2, and text:
During the first Eastman week of each month, the Treasuror CAN and
SHALL perform the following actions, collectively known as
Balancing, in sequence:
This falls in to the trap that we've already seen - this means the
Treasuror CAN only do it in the first Eastman week - if e fails to do it
in that time, e must wait until next month.
Good point. I wrote this before that was an issue.
1. Establish the performance value of each interest group as
follows:
A. Justice: (the number of cases submitted in the previous
Agoran month that were not issued a valid judgement within
one week of being assigned) / (the number of cases submitted
in the previous Agoran month)
B. Efficiency: The mean of the following value for each office:
- If the office has no monthly or weekly duties, 0.
Potential scam of creating a bunch of offices with no responsibilities,
but at that point you're already changing the rules and might as well
just amend this one or create a bunch of coins.
I don't think that's something to be extremely concerned about. A scam
like that would take a rule amendment that I don't think very many
people would vote for.
C. Legislation: (the number of proposals submitted in the
previous Agoran month whose outcomes were not ADOPTED) /
(the number of proposals submitted in the previous Agoran
month)
D. Participation: (the number of Agoran decisions initiated in
the previous Agoran month whose outcome was FAILED QUORUM) /
(the number of Agoran decisions initiated in the previous
Agoran month)
2. For each interest group:
A. generate a random number between 0 and 1 to at least three
significant digits.
Hmm... I think "generate a random number between 0 and 1" requires a
uniform distribution over all real numbers in that range, which is not
really possible; I'm not sure that the significant digits requirement
helps it.
There's always multiplying everything by some factor of ten and
generating a random number in that range, but if I can make this work,
that would be cleaner.
B. Increment the value of the interest group by one if the
generated number is equal to or greater than the performance
value of the interest group; otherwise decrement its value by
one.
3. Create a public message that includes all relevant values
from this process.
Amend Rule 2496 "Rewards" so that it reads, in full:
A player CAN, by announcement, earn the set of assets associated
with a reward condition exactly once in a timely fashion each time
e fulfills it, provided the announcement specifies the action that
e performed and the amount of assets e earns as a result.
Below is a list of reward conditions and their associated assets.
* Casting a vote on all proposals distributed in the previous
week on eir own behalf: 1 participation cheque.
Possible ambiguity: "(Casting a vote [...]) on eir own behalf" vs.
("Casting a vote on (all proposals distributed [...] on eir own behalf)".
What does a proposal distributed on one's own behalf even look like?
Unless I'm missing something, the second suggestion wouldn't even make
sense.
* Being the author of an adopted proposal: 1 legislation cheque.
I like the AI*(F-A) because a) it creates more money, b) it values
proposals that touch more important parts of the ruleset more highly,
and c) it values uncontroversial proposals more highly. You could
probably do something similar here, but I think all proposals getting
equal rewards is not a good thing.
While I was writing this draft up, I thought about how to do that. Every
solution I could think of was extremely inelegant. Giving out a number
of legislation cheques greater than 1 unbalances the whole thing -- I
would have to increase the others so that this is not seen as the only
way to earn money. This would, in turn, cause major inflation because
all the rewards would be multiple times greater at points. I suppose I
could change how valuable cheques are, but I feel the system is granular
enough as it is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, this is a proto for a reason: because this draft is trash. I
could list all the things I dislike about it if I wanted to. And so I
have.
1. For such a simple (in-concept) system, it sure requires quite a bit
of text to describe it. I feel like it could be a bit more concise.
Defining cheques as assets would help. However, I don't think that text
is inherently a bad thing - I would honestly rather see something that's
relatively clear but longer than something that's overly clever and
brittle.
The balancing rule is what I'm referring to in large part here. The list
looks intimidating but I'm not sure how that could be helped.
2. Penalizing proposals that fail is a terrible idea because it
discourages being the slightest bit controversial or else the entire
collective is punished.
If you want a party that tries to get legislation _passed_, then that is
the natural definition. You could punish proposals that do horrendously,
but that discourages pointing out flaws in proposals.
I don't have a good response for this. If anyone has ideas to save
Legislation, I'm open.
6. Theses should probably be converted to cheques first.
I would be against 6 - theses don't really fit into any of the
categories, and I feel like theses should always be equally valuable.
Your first point is why I didn't change anything. At the same time it
just feels weird for there to be a black sheep.
--
Trigon
