On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 4:22 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I like the overall idea! Some comments: > > On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 4:24 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > Labor Tokens are a fixed asset, tracked by the (ADoP?). > I could see either fixed or liquid working here, though on first read > I agree with you on fixed, as it limits how transactional this could > be. OTOH, in the bigger picture using labor as the basis of a trading > economy makes a lot of sense too. > > Labor Tokens could support an economy I suppose (as long as there's a reasonable way for the unemployed non-officers to get significant amounts of Labor Tokens as well) but my intent is that Labor Tokens is a safe little bubble that can ensure payment to officers regardless of what's happening outside of it. It is intended to be agnostic. But, it's just a matter of aesthetics in the end, I suppose; because we can just amend anything to anything else. > > Professionals CAN > Maybe include judges as professionals - a reward for judging of some kind? > That seems OK to me, sure. > by announcement gain once per month an amount of Labor Tokens equal to the > > complexity of eir Office times ten, with that amount being affected > Should a person get tokens if they hold an office very briefly? One > way we did it before was like a salary: "If a player held an office > for 16+ days in the previous month, and was not found guilty of any > unforgivable crimes associated with eir office during that month, e > CAN gain..." Another option we used before was "N Labor tokens per > report published". > I like a lot the N Labor Tokens per report published idea. I like how proportional it would make the rewards. > > multiplicatively by the following: > > - x0.85 if the Office has a Special Privilege > Rather than scaling by privilege, maybe combine the concepts under > complexity? (turn "complexity" into "wage" and make it equal to > complexity minus privilege level). Overall this "privilege" idea is a > bit uncertain for me - what looks like a perk from the outside (e.g. > Assessor's duties) is not really a useful thing that often. But if we > use the idea, the privileges definitely aren't equal so making it > binary seems pretty coarse. If we go with the "wage" of using > (complexity - privilege), the level of privilege for each office could > be subject to consensus discussion, like complexity was/is, or > (complexity - privilege) could be just discussed as a whole. > Yeah, I think that's a good idea. > - x1.5 if the Officer hasn't committed any Monthly or Weekly Tardiness > > crimes since they last gained Labor Tokens or became the current holder > of > > their Office. > The tardiness part should probably not be platonic, the ADoP/other > players shouldn't need to look for unnoticed crimes? Alternatively, > if the reward level is scaled by number of reports/making reports, > this takes care of itself without being entangled with the justice > system. > Yeah, the number of reports thing seems to work better than this. > If a certain Labor Token has existed for more than 2 months, any player > CAN > > destroy it by announcement and are ENCOURAGED to. > This means Labor Tokens aren't fungible and the recordkeepor would > have to track every one separately - and the user would have to > remember to specify "spend the older tokens not the newer ones". > Seems like more complication than it's worth? Though I wholly agree > we don't want endless accumulation of these things - maybe some kind > of quarterly reduction, taxes, or forced handsize reduction like: "if > a player has more than N tokens, any player CAN spend them on that > player's behalf with Notice, and the ADoP is ENCOURAGED to do so" or > something. > I think the forced handsize reduction is probably good, or perhaps there is just a strict limit of how many Labor Tokens (as a fixed asset) you can own at any time. > > If, for some reason, Officers cannot be reasonably retributed in Labor > > Tokens, players are ENCOURAGED to propose ways to amend it so that they > are. > We've often talked about awarding people for one-off jobs (example: > anyone could offer a major contribution to the website). Maybe a pool > of tokens that could be awarded by some kind of Tabled Action for > specific labors (this might be an add-on expansion for a later > proposal). > I think this can be good too. Maybe a 'Bounty' for X Tokens can be created with Y support/consent/something, and Bounties are tracked by the... ADoP? Hopefully this isn't all too much for them. > > Labor Tokens can be spent by announcement for the following benefits: > > - "Voting Strength", for 10 Labor Tokens: The Officer gains 1 Voting > > Strength for the next 30 days. > > - "Blot Removal", for X Labor Tokens: The Officer, upon purchasing this > > benefit, also expunges X blots from a person. > > - "Subgame benefit X", for X Labor Tokens: You gain X Gold, X Men-At-Arms > > and X Large Burritos. > > - etc > We already have two "bonus power" systems, Stones and Dreams. Adding > a third entirely parallel system seems duplicative, not to mention > having to go through the scaling exercise of how many tokens per each > power and keep that up to date with subgames. Could save a lot of > effort by leveraging an existing system? For example, if we assume > the Dreams are balanced so as to be about equal, a simple solution may > be that by paying some N of Labor Tokens, the payer can have the > benefits of a second Dream during the following week? > > -G. > That direction sounds good to me too. I believe that the Labor Token redeem section should change as the game changes and Dreams seem like a good candidate for balance, yeah.
