One of the goals with my banking system si using loans to help more people get money to do things. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Sep 26, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> Here's a message that, as a consequence of my email troubles, never >> successfully sent. Although the immediate context is no longer >> applicable, the general principles still are, so I thought I'd resend >> it now that my email is working a bit better than it was. > > Still quite relevant and worth addressing! > > Personally, my willingness to use the deregistration scam is political. > > The issues with minimum income and fluctuating values were pointed out > 2+ months ago and the designers of the economy were basically lukewarm > on fixing it, to the point of saying no minimum incomes were necessary > and things were just fine other than implementation bugs. And the > response of "fix it yourself" isn't very satisfactory, as others charge > ahead with Banking and other very secondary elaboration before the basic > game balance is addressed. > > So now that the bug has been pointed out and anyone can use it, it > becomes a political tool, not a scam. Regardless of how it got there, > there's a power in the rules that people seeking a minimum income can > use as a bargaining chip. > > And to be clear, it's not trying to game the current system (that is, > use it to game my present position), it's a political question on what > the "right" overall system is (i.e. what's the game balance), and if > there's a genuine disagreement about design, it becomes a "political" > discussion where different tools can be used to compromise (and if > everything's reset to boot the new system and remove temporary scam > advantages, that's fine). > > -G. > > > > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
