On Thu., Sep. 12, 2019, 14:15 James Cook, <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 10:07, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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: > > > > 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. > > - If the office has monthly duties but no weekly duties, 0 > > if its monthly duties were performed in the previous > > Agoran month; 1 otherwise. > > - If the office has weekly duties but no monthly duties, > > (the number of weeks its weekly duties were not > > performed in the previous Agoran month) / 4. > > - If the office has both monthly and weekly duties, ((the > > number of weeks its weekly duties were not performed in > > the previous Agoran month) + (1 if its monthly duties were > > not performed in the previous month)) / 5. > > 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. > > 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. > > What if, instead of these balancing rules, each interest group does a > stock (cheque) buy-back every quarter, and the only way to cash in a > cheque between quarters is to sell it to another player? > > Specifically: > > * Make cheques of each interest group a currency so players can exchange > them. > > * At the start of each quarter, every interest group does a cheque > buy-back. It works like this. I'll use Efficiency as the example. > * Efficiency earns 50 Coins. > * Each player can declare sell offers. E.g. I offer to cell 3 > efficiency cheques for 5 Coins each, and an additional 2 efficiency > cheques for 10 Coins each. > * After the offer period is over, Efficiency spends its 50 Coins to > buy as many cheques as possible, starting with the lowest sell offers > and working its way up. > > Benefits: > * Self-balancing: We still have the property that if officers slack > off, then efficiency cheques are worth more, simply because fewer will > be issued. > * Nobody needs to explicitly keep track of how many reports were missed. > * We can have fun speculating about prices and selling cheques to each > other. > > Other interest groups: > > If Justice also gets 50 Coins per quarter, that would mean judging a > CFJ is more lucrative if fewer are being called. If we don't like that > we could grant Justice a number of Coins depending on the total number > of CFJs called, which shouldn't be too hard to figure out. > > Same for participation, though it seems desirable to me that > participation is rewarded more when people aren't voting. > Follow up note: with this change, in theory it's fine to issue a huge number of legislation cheques like AI*(F-A) since the value of a cheque at buy-back time will just correspondingly go down. I don't have an opinion right now on how much passing proposals should be worth. >
