On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The thing particularly annoying about it to me is that you took *all* >> the crops. If you had just taken a few, then fine, exchange rates >> would go up, life would go on. But you devalued pens to absolute >> worthlessness,
Except I didn't. As far as I can tell, pen holdings are still in about the same place they were before the bank run, so if I give back most of the crops, we'd still have a working bank system, with a slight inflation of pens. However, if I took only a few of the crops, there would be the imminent threat of any of the other BoA members performing the same scam. There might well then have been a true run on the bank, where everyone withdrew as many crops as possible before such a thing could happen, and then we'd be in a much worse situation, because we'd pretty much be forced to start from scratch. >> The fact that the AFO won't >> agree to any proposed changes to the Bank isn't exactly helping >> matters either. I thought the main effort was to create the RBoA, not to make changes to the Bank itself. If I don't consent to something (that any of the other AFO members could have consented to, by the way), it's probably just because I haven't been paying attention. > Especially since the proposed changed to the Bank of Agora would have > closed the loophole that allowed you to scam it long before the scam > ever took place. Oh! Well, that makes more sense I had never heard of such changes. Which are you referring to, specifically?
