I have an idea for making goods which is bouncing around in my mind, but I
haven't the time to sit down and write it out. It'd also be my first
proposal, so I'm a bit apprehensive at throwing it out into the wild
without double-checking some basic things first.

天火狐

On 23 September 2017 at 19:01, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think we need to encourage spending. People ignore the current
> agoran economy too much. People don't ignore the real economy because
> they need to eat. My vision is to have it be completely impossible to
> meaningfully participate without paying for it, thus forcing economic
> participation.
>
> I also think we need inflation to match new players coming in. And we
> need more incentivisation of inter-player spending, rather than just
> player-agora spending. The few businesses people have set up right now
> (Celestial Fire-Fox's vote-buying thing for example) just aren't being
> used.
>
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There's two separate issues:
> >
> > 1.  How fast should a brand new player be able to catch up with an old
> player;
> >
> > 2.  How much consistent advantage should an officer have over a
> non-officer.
> >
> > It's confounded because most old players are officers, but given the
> welcome
> > package I think it's mostly a problem of (2) not (1).
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> >> On 09/23/2017 04:47 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >>       I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how
> much time the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will
> achieve a win (or dictatorship) given their join date.
> >>
> >> If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at the
> start than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on that
> front). For example, the case where the total capital
> >> of all active players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome
> Pack), grows over time.
> >>
> >>
> >> New players shouldn't have such a handicap that they overcome
> consistently good play from existing players. And the stamp win isn't
> restricted to one-time. New players can still win with as much work as
> >> old players, but the old players have a lead by virtue of starting
> sooner.
> >>
> >>       On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>       On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >>       > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently
> gerontocratic system.
> >>       > It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
> allocation.
> >>
> >>       Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some
> broad thoughts.
> >>
> >>       I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of
> Economies and
> >>       think of it in terms of Game Design.
> >>
> >>       On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset
> growth.  Base
> >>       assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster
> (I'm
> >>       particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This can
> be very
> >>       fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties
> start *really*
> >>       producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early
> determination of
> >>       winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a
> frustrating
> >>       slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real
> life), this is
> >>       the gerontocracy.
> >>
> >>       It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of
> valuable assets
> >>       is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight
> lead in
> >>       your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).
> Moreover,
> >>       right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have
> to compete
> >>       directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to
> hoard right now
> >>       is to have any chance in an auction.
> >>
> >>       I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically
> reducing the
> >>       buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased
> land).
> >>
> >>       On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough
> diversity of
> >>       things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on.
> We need
> >>       to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.
> >>
> >>       There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I
> personally would
> >>       add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic
> system, and
> >>       simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about
> last week.
> >>       This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other
> things we could
> >>       invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think
> about specialized
> >>       roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't
> easily change
> >>       whether you're a farmer or not).
> >>
> >>       The total portfolio of things to buy should have a unified game
> balance and
> >>       different pathways to riches/success, and not just be a grab bag
> of random
> >>       investment instruments (e.g. stamps, bonds, whatever).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Reply via email to