OscarMeyr wrote:
> Any labor above basic grunt (and sometimes even that) isn't truly
> fungible.
Zefram wrote:
> that's a pretty standard service and you can to a large extent exchange
> one accountant for another. But what we do? No. Our offices are not
> so mechanical.
I mispoke here.
Goethe wrote:
The second point, though, is plain old critical mass. At the time
I joined, the game peaked at perhaps 15 players who were actively
participating plus another 10 who were semi-active. That's
a vastly different dynamic the current ~10 players. When we
dismantled the currency sys
Goethe wrote:
Rule 2128 allows you to specify a contest to determine the next winner.
It doesn't say you have to run the contest. If I come up with a good
contest and offer to run it, would you be willing to invite players to
enter to win as per R2128?
I don't see why not.
In any case, yo
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
A player may change emself from sitting or lying down, or vice
versa, by announcement.
s/,/ to standing,/
No, actually I meant "from sitting to lying down, or vice versa". If
you're standing, then you must wait till you're assigned something
(switch
On 4/12/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What were CFJs 163 - 662? Were they all frivolous?
CFJ n had the form ``CFJ n-1 was illegal and shall be retracted''.
--
Michael Slone
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>When you create a virtual currency, and then it becomes substantial
>enough that you have to create virtual virtual currencies by issuing
>bonds, you're doing something right!
I think if you got to such a level of derivatives trading then you
must have had an interesting game.
On Apr 12, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
You say that "expertise can't be fungible", but isn't that what a real
life service economy is (trading your specific labor/skills for a
fungible commodity)?
Any labor above basic grunt (and sometimes even that) isn't truly
fungible. Take a h
On Apr 12, 2007, at 1:09 AM, Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Repeal Rule 2126 (Voting Credits).
Not going to turn pre-existing VCs into beads?
Good idea at least in abstract. When I created VCs, I seeded the
game by giving everybody 2 credits to start with.
So how about seeding each pla
On Apr 12, 2007, at 5:26 AM, Zefram wrote:
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
Pineapple Partnership, c/o Zefram and Goethe
1 2 0
Didn't the Pineapple Partnership get a VC for judging?
-zefram
I can't find the records, and it probably happened when I had my mind
on something el
On Apr 12, 2007, at 2:11 AM, Zefram wrote:
(This was in fact done back in 1994, when judicial salaries were in
Points, and is why no one ever references CFJs 163 to 662.)
What were CFJs 163 - 662? Were they all frivolous?
I'd better check the rules to make sure the CotC can throw out
obvio
Zefram wrote:
> Please don't, that really sucked. The current less direct system, of
> buying voting power which can be exercised on all (Ordinary) proposals,
> is vastly better.
I disagree that this sucked, I thought it worked reasonably well and
was very interesting. Maybe it was more interes
H. Speaker Murphy,
Rule 2128 allows you to specify a contest to determine the next winner.
It doesn't say you have to run the contest. If I come up with a good
contest and offer to run it, would you be willing to invite players to
enter to win as per R2128?
In any case, your proposal should
Proto-proposal: allow Speaker deregistration; AI=3
{{{
Amend rule 101 by deleting the words "besides the Speaker".
Amend rule 103 to read:
There should always be exactly one player who is the Speaker.
No one other than a player can be Speaker, and there can never be
more than
Ed Murphy wrote:
> At the end of each quarter, half of each player's supply of
> each type of bead (rounding up) are destroyed.
On reflection, this is a particularly good provision. It means that,
in the absence of spending, bead holdings change in an AIMD pattern
(additive increase, mu
14 matches
Mail list logo
