On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 14:35, Pavitra<celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: > ais523 wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 14:27 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 13:16, C-walker<charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > So if I hold two II 3 offices and complete all of their duties, I get >>> > only 3 cards, and if I have an office for which I complete no duties >>> > whatsoever, I am still rewarded? >>> >>> Yes, I intended this to work this way. By only rewarding the top >>> office among offices held it has the by-product of spreading the >>> offices around among more players. It also keeps from making one >>> player too powerful simply because e holds a few key offices. And >>> non-performing officers already tend to be replaced rather quickly. >>> Why bog down the rules with special provisions to deny them salary? If >>> they are not doing their job then vote them out! >> >> FWIW, this is why I haven't taken Greetor. I'm already doing one office >> (Ambassador) unpaid due to having a higher-II office with the same >> priority already (IIRC Cards has changed that, but I'm having problems >> trying to keep track of that). > > Maybe it would be better not to have an a priori prejudice against > several offices being held by one player, but let the voters decide how > they want to distribute the responsibilities. > > It has been said that there is no form of market failure so bad that > government intervention will not eventually prove even worse. This may > be a case of that principle at work. > Tell that to Obama....
I'm leaving my proposal as is (v3), but I'm not opposed to someone proposing a change to reward all offices a player holds. BobTHJ
