Ed Murphy wrote:
>Repeal Rule 2126 (Voting Credits).
Not going to turn pre-existing VCs into beads?
> At the end of each quarter, half of each player's supply of
> each type of bead (rounding up) are destroyed.
"supply" should presumably be "holding".
>Create a rule titled "Combining
Ed Murphy wrote:
Proposal: Agoran Chromodynamics
(AI = 3, please)
I like this. This looks like we are starting to have a game as opposed
to simply dealing with the courts. I know some people love the whole
courts sector, but I'm looking for something to play with, I just
haven't had the ti
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
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
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Repeal Rule 2126 (Voting Credits).
Not going to turn pre-existing VCs into beads?
Hey, you're the one who was complaining about VC inflation. :)
* One Green Bead to bar a player from judging a CFJ.
This would be a nightmare in a crisis. It is best
Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
On the whole, I'm not convinced that the extra complexity here (over
VCs)
is worthwhile. I'd like to play under the VC system for a while longer.
The combining-beads idea dates back to Steve's Separation of Money era,
at which time there were more units of cur
Ed Murphy wrote:
>could go back to charging for proposing and/or voting;
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 think generally currency-based systems don't work well in a no
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
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 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
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 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
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
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.
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>I'd better check the rules to make sure the CotC can throw out
>obviously frivolous CFJs...
The Excess CFJ mechanism would suffice to stem such a large flow --
unless, of course, the CotC is in on the conspiracy.
-zefram
Zefram wrote:
> So, anyway, I don't know. Maybe you did have a playable currency
> game. I'd like to see mail logs for it. I maintain that currencies
> fundamentally don't work in a nomic.
Wish the logs were available. By then (I was part of the Slashdot
influx) bugs were still there, but the
16 matches
Mail list logo
