On 9/9/19 7:24 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 9/9/19 8:24 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
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.
Alright, it's a stretch, but it could be read as only counting if you
were the one to distribute the proposals, and you acted on your own
behalf. So, effectively, only Aris could get it.
That does look like a valid reading, actually. I don't think any judge
would actually accpet it, but if/when I publish more revisions, I'll
clarify.
* 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.
I kind of already see proposals as the fastest way to earn money - I
think I've earned more money from proposals than all the other methods
(not a rigorous claim).
With that in mind, does there need to be any more incentive?
--
Trigon
