On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 09:59 -0600, Sprocklem wrote: > On 2014-10-27 09:47, Alex Smith wrote: > > * Wins / assets that let you win; > > * Votes on proposals (both over a time period, and on a single > > proposal); > > * The ability to disable/penalise other players. [I was > > traditionally willing to trade away quite a lot in return for an > > agreement for the player I was trading with to become inactive > > at a time of my choice in the past. I made several such deals, > > all of which turned out to the mutual benefit of both parties.] > > Yes, but none of these are things that need to be payed for and, as G. > stated, without something of high value that people need to pay for, > many people will likely ignore the economy, or at least only use it > minimally, making it hard to get started.
You can charge for pretty much anything. Buying wins has happened on occasion (High Score is the most visible example); buying votes is a frequent game mechanic whenever we have an economy; and although disablings are normally done via agreement, that didn't prevent me slinging around Stool Pigeons and Dunce Caps back when they existed. If you make the economic part of the voting system sufficiently unbalanced over the democratic part, votes /will/ be worth paying for. Of course, that way lies several economic scams that have been done to death, but that may just mean we can avoid them this time round. -- ais523
