Re: DIS: Regulating snark

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Proto proposal: Grudge.
> There exists an asset called a Grudge.

Karma systems +1 like the idea; when we've had them, they both lead
to good feelings and let us know when we're stepping on each others'
toes.

Re: DIS: Regulating snark

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I think the Anger Management or even carding could be a helpful addition.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On May 29, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> Maybe also have something like "If a player X owns three grudges and for each 
> of those grudges the targets thereof also owns a grudge against the player X, 
> the {keeper of grudges} may place player X on Anger Management", which would 
> be a state that punishes a player a little. 
> 
> Oh yeah, Grudges should not be tradable. I hazard that it would be unwise if 
> they were. 
> 
> 天火狐
> 
> On 29 May 2017 at 14:32, Quazie  wrote:
> It's a rough draft - I feel like holding grudges should be advantageous - but 
> holding too many makes you vulnerable is the premise I was going for. Voting 
> strength is pretty low right now (there were prior situations where voting 
> strength defaulted to a much larger number) and maybe increasing it by 1 is 
> interesting when the default is higher than 1.
> 
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26 Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> I don't like the voting strength bit—I don't think there is any harm in 
> creating a temporary grudge whenever you vote AGAINST.
> 
> Gaelan
> 
> > On May 29, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> >
> > Proto proposal: Grudge.
> >
> > There exists an asset called a Grudge.
> >
> > Each Grudge has a person associated with it.
> >
> > Once a month, A player may indicate a person, and a reason, and then gain 
> > one Grudge associated with said person.
> >
> > If a player is holding a Grudge against every current player they may be 
> > deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this deregistration 
> > as Spiteful.
> >
> > If every other player has a Grudge representing  the same player e may be 
> > deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this deregistration 
> > as Banishment.
> >
> > If a player is holding a Grudge representing a player, they have voting 
> > strength + 1 in every non-for vote on proposals written by that player.
> >
> > If a player votes for a proposal Witten by a person they hold a Grudge 
> > against, then they 'Get Over It' and lose said Grudge.
> >
> > 
> >
> > I'm watching lots of angst exist all of a sudden, so let's codify it.
> >
> > I don't know if it's a good idea - but I've been bouncing it around in my 
> > head for a while, so I decided to proto it.
> 

Re: Re: DIS: Regulating snark

[CuddleBeam]

Perhaps make a central "Karma" system, linked to both cards and grudges?

And holding Office with a "clean-streak" of not doing any offenses and no
Tardiness would earn you Karma, for example, because you've done good
service.

I think it would be good for both anti-negative and pro-positive movements
to be involved in systems like this. Stick and carrot and whatnot.

Re: DIS: Regulating snark

[Josh T]

Maybe also have something like "If a player X owns three grudges and for
each of those grudges the targets thereof also owns a grudge against the
player X, the {keeper of grudges} may place player X on Anger Management",
which would be a state that punishes a player a little.

Oh yeah, Grudges should not be tradable. I hazard that it would be unwise
if they were.

天火狐

On 29 May 2017 at 14:32, Quazie  wrote:

> It's a rough draft - I feel like holding grudges should be advantageous -
> but holding too many makes you vulnerable is the premise I was going for.
> Voting strength is pretty low right now (there were prior situations where
> voting strength defaulted to a much larger number) and maybe increasing it
> by 1 is interesting when the default is higher than 1.
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26 Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
>> I don't like the voting strength bit—I don't think there is any harm in
>> creating a temporary grudge whenever you vote AGAINST.
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>> > On May 29, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Quazie  wrote:
>> >
>> > Proto proposal: Grudge.
>> >
>> > There exists an asset called a Grudge.
>> >
>> > Each Grudge has a person associated with it.
>> >
>> > Once a month, A player may indicate a person, and a reason, and then
>> gain one Grudge associated with said person.
>> >
>> > If a player is holding a Grudge against every current player they may
>> be deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this
>> deregistration as Spiteful.
>> >
>> > If every other player has a Grudge representing  the same player e may
>> be deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this
>> deregistration as Banishment.
>> >
>> > If a player is holding a Grudge representing a player, they have voting
>> strength + 1 in every non-for vote on proposals written by that player.
>> >
>> > If a player votes for a proposal Witten by a person they hold a Grudge
>> against, then they 'Get Over It' and lose said Grudge.
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > I'm watching lots of angst exist all of a sudden, so let's codify it.
>> >
>> > I don't know if it's a good idea - but I've been bouncing it around in
>> my head for a while, so I decided to proto it.
>>
>

Re: DIS: Regulating snark

[Quazie]

It's a rough draft - I feel like holding grudges should be advantageous -
but holding too many makes you vulnerable is the premise I was going for.
Voting strength is pretty low right now (there were prior situations where
voting strength defaulted to a much larger number) and maybe increasing it
by 1 is interesting when the default is higher than 1.
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I don't like the voting strength bit—I don't think there is any harm in
> creating a temporary grudge whenever you vote AGAINST.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On May 29, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> >
> > Proto proposal: Grudge.
> >
> > There exists an asset called a Grudge.
> >
> > Each Grudge has a person associated with it.
> >
> > Once a month, A player may indicate a person, and a reason, and then
> gain one Grudge associated with said person.
> >
> > If a player is holding a Grudge against every current player they may be
> deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this deregistration
> as Spiteful.
> >
> > If every other player has a Grudge representing  the same player e may
> be deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this
> deregistration as Banishment.
> >
> > If a player is holding a Grudge representing a player, they have voting
> strength + 1 in every non-for vote on proposals written by that player.
> >
> > If a player votes for a proposal Witten by a person they hold a Grudge
> against, then they 'Get Over It' and lose said Grudge.
> >
> > 
> >
> > I'm watching lots of angst exist all of a sudden, so let's codify it.
> >
> > I don't know if it's a good idea - but I've been bouncing it around in
> my head for a while, so I decided to proto it.
>

Re: DIS: Regulating snark

[Gaelan Steele]

I don't like the voting strength bit—I don't think there is any harm in 
creating a temporary grudge whenever you vote AGAINST. 

Gaelan

> On May 29, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> Proto proposal: Grudge.
> 
> There exists an asset called a Grudge.
> 
> Each Grudge has a person associated with it.
> 
> Once a month, A player may indicate a person, and a reason, and then gain one 
> Grudge associated with said person.
> 
> If a player is holding a Grudge against every current player they may be 
> deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this deregistration 
> as Spiteful.
> 
> If every other player has a Grudge representing  the same player e may be 
> deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this deregistration 
> as Banishment.
> 
> If a player is holding a Grudge representing a player, they have voting 
> strength + 1 in every non-for vote on proposals written by that player.
> 
> If a player votes for a proposal Witten by a person they hold a Grudge 
> against, then they 'Get Over It' and lose said Grudge.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm watching lots of angst exist all of a sudden, so let's codify it.
> 
> I don't know if it's a good idea - but I've been bouncing it around in my 
> head for a while, so I decided to proto it.