Alexis wrote:
> How would people feel about changing to a model where rewards are primarily
> awarded by officers in response to certain events? E.g. the Assessor would
> give proposal rewards, the Tailor Glitter rewards, the CotC judging rewards.
That would certainly make things easier to keep track of. Except for
Glitter (see below), there's already an officer recording each event
associated with an award, so I don't see that it would add much to their
workloads (though I'd want their own confirmation on that before giving
my unbridled support). And it would massively simplify things for the
Treasuror.
If we required the reward to occur within 14 days of the action ("in a
moderately timely fashion"?), rewards could be made in the officer's
next weekly report. That would also make issuing rewards an action that
could be deputised for.
Here's a proto:
Amend Rule 2496 ("Rewards") as follows:
Replace its first two paragraphs with the following:
Each time a player fulfills a reward condition, the officer
associated with the condition CAN once, and SHALL within 14 days,
grant the associated set of assets to the player.
Below is a list of reward conditions and their associated assets
and officers.
Append "(Assessor)" to the first list item.
Append "(Arbitor)" to the second list item.
Append "(ADoP)" to the third list item.
Append "(ADoP)" to the fourth list item.
Append "(Herald)" to the fifth list item.
The only thing I'm a little concerned about is glitter. Rewards for
proposals, CFJs, reports and theses are all clearly associated with one
officer when they are awarded, but glitter might be in response to a
variety of different actions. I don't think the Tailor ought to have to
keep track of the votes on every proposal to see when someone earns an
orange ribbon.
Here's a proto that gives the Tailor the responsibility to evaluate the
number of coins due and award them, but not detect when a glitter-event
occurs. It also tidies up some of the ribbon language, and extends
glitter to work for all colours of ribbon (except black, obviously).
Amend Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") as follows:
Replace the paragraph starting "While a person qualifies..." with
the following:
A person qualifies for a type of Ribbon if e has earned that type
of Ribbon within the preceding 7 days (including earlier in the
same message).
Replace the list items starting "Gray" and "Transparent" with the
following:
Gray (A): Once each month, the Tailor CAN by announcement nominate
a person for a Gray Ribbon. E is ENCOURAGED to do so in the same
message in which e publishes eir monthly report. A person
qualifies for a Gray Ribbon if e is the most recent person to be
so nominated. [This allows the recipient some leeway about the
timing of their ribbon, to prevent em from losing the opportunity
to get a Transparent Ribbon on a technicality.]
Transparent (T): A person qualifies for a Transparent Ribbon if,
at any point during the last 7 days, e qualified for at least 5
other types of Ribbon. [With the other rewordings in this
proposal, this should come out equivalent to the previous wording
even though it does not explicitly mention "awarding" or
"earning".]
Move the list item starting "Emerald" so that it falls between the
list items starting "Green" and "Cyan". [This was bothering me.]
Append the following:
While a person qualifies for a type of Ribbon:
- If e has not owned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7
days, any player CAN, by announcement, award em that type of
Ribbon.
- Otherwise, if e has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or
the corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or
came to qualify for that type of Ribbon, e CAN, by
announcement, award emself that type of Glitter.
Amend Rule 2602 ("Glitter") to read:
For each type of Ribbon, there is a type of Glitter with the same
name. An attempt to award Glitter is INEFFECTIVE if the type of
Glitter is not specified. Awarding Glitter is secured.
Each time a player is awarded a type of Glitter, the Tailor CAN
once, and SHALL within 14 days, grant the player a number of coins
equal to the number of players who did not own the corresponding
type of Ribbon at the time of the award.
[Alternatively R2602 could be merged into R2438 (first para) and
R2496 (second para) to further simplify]
> In the past, Agora has often taken an extremely pragmatic approach, where
> the officers in question would be given the power to make such awards even
> if they were incorrect, with penalties for officers who abuse their
> position and possibly mechanisms to undo them. What are others' thoughts on
> moving towards this model?
Personally I'm not terribly worried about the risk of abusive officers.
As much as we pontificate about "protecting against scams", Agora is not
really as hyperliteralist as it seems - it's not quite as democratic as
BlogNomic's votes on whether someone meets a victory condition, but when
a scam is perpetrated that's obviously in poor taste, the responsible
party is rarely allowed to keep eir winnings. I can recall two incidents
where officers badly abused their offices for personal gain, the first
being when I rearranged proposals' order as Assessor to change their
effects, and the second when D. Margaux awarded emself infinite
political favours as Clork. Both were eventually reversed by proposal or
ratification, mine because it was unnecessarily disruptive to everyone
else and D. Margaux's because it was incredibly boring. (Honestly the
most interesting part was the CFJ on whether e deserved an infinite
fine.)
As Aris said at the time:
> Winning by flagrant rule violations is generally thought to be uncouth.
-twg
