Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever: http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#gerontocracy-syndrome
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> > >
