On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 10:24 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I also encourage everyone to vote against as many of Aris's proposals as > possible (i.e, the non-essential ones) because Aris has submitted 10 > proposals or something, most of which are minor cosmetic changes, in a > blatant attempt to get heaps of money. >
Uhhhhhhhh... That isn't true at all. The only one that's actually cosmetic is "Referenda", which results in significant increases in brevity and comprehensibility. I think it's a big improvement, and several others seem to agree. The closest other ones are probably "Ministerial Reshuffling" and "Proposal Recycling Initiative". I certainly wouldn't be particularly upset if "Proposal Recycling Initiative" doesn't pass, it just fixes a few problems that I noticed when fiddling with other legislative rules. "Ministerial Reshuffling" means that chambers, which currently have to be stretched quite a bit to cover all proposals, would cover them more comfortably. This is also a worthwhile improvement. In general, money had relatively little to with my thinking. While I can't say the thought of earning money isn't something I'm looking forward to, I think I would have submitted all of my proposals even if there were no financial reward for doing so. Now, clearly the impending economic change is a major reason why I'm submitting all of these proposals. But what actually happened was that while I was fixing things with the new economic system, I saw other problems in the proposal rules. I decided to propose ways to fix those too while pending was still free. I also remembered a bunch of other things I didn't like in other rules, and proposed fixes for those as well. I knew that in the future I'd be financially punished for improving things, and so I decided to propose improvements now rather than later. I put significant time into these proposals (many many hours, at least ten and probably a fair bit more than that), and I was responsive to feedback on them. We've decided that proposal authors deserve to be rewarded for their time and effort in coming up with good proposals, using a financial incentive. If we didn't want people to get money for writing good proposals, we wouldn't have come up with a financial incentive. Likewise, we've decided as part of our current economic system that pending should be free, and I am relying on that arraignment while it lasts, just as many others are, including you. If it had been proposed at the drafting stage that some of these proposals should be merged, I would have considered it, but you didn't propose that then. As it is, these are proposals that are intended to make the game better. I'm not saying that everyone is required to vote for them. We have voting procedures so people can say whether specific changes are positive or negative. But if you think my proposals are good, I'd ask you not to vote against them just because I'll be receiving compensation from my work. As a final point, if people think that some of my proposals were split up and should have been merged, I'm prepared to consider pledging to give away some of the money. I wrote proposals that I considered logically cohesive and sensible units for voting, but I do agree that if proposals have been divided to the point where it's abusive and just gets extra money, that's unfair and could be a reason to vote against the proposals. I don't think I did that sort of abuse, but if the public disagrees with me I'll give up some of the money to ensure that changes that I think are good get considered on their merits. What I won't do is categorically agree to give away compensation for the effort I put into writing proposals. I hope people won't take my unwillingness to do that as a reason to vote down proposals they otherwise approve of. -Aris
