On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 7:58 AM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know what you want to improve about the core system. The most > change that has been enacted in the past few months to the core system > are minor fixes that clarify things. Sure, we find a broken bit > sometimes, but those are fixed relatively quickly and with little > fanfare. At this point, all the interlocking cogs that turn Agora into a > well-oiled machine are turning fine. And unless you or anyone else can > find an area where the rules could use significant improvement, I don't > see the core system improving at all. Not outside of minimal wording > changes.
I do wonder if maybe "all the interlocking cogs... turning fine" is part of the problem. In real-life political systems, things keep changing because people still feel that they are inadequate or unjust, or because there are current events that need to be responded to. But in Agora, there seems to be a general consensus that the current system is fit for purpose and needs no major improvements or alterations. So, naturally, nothing much tends to change with the "core" rules, and instead we've been distracting ourselves with a series of sub-games. Perhaps it's time to deliberately tinkering some of the core rules and see what happens? For example, I know from archives that proposals tend to oscillate between "free and accessible to everyone" and "gated behind game mechanics". When I registered a year and a half ago, proposals cost a nominal fee, and now they're totally unrestricted - so we've gone through a phase of direct democracy. What would people think about changing that? -twg
