On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I object to this one as well. I really don't like the idea of this > going into the Vote Market contract, but why don't you create this as > a sub-contract?
A sub-contract won't be able to modify VP. While props could just exist for the sake of existing, and whoever has the most props gets to feel good, my aim is to encourage proper play and vice versa. A number in a report does not do that. I would much prefer to hit improper players in the wallet... hence the VP. At an abstract level, we currently have two methods to encourage people to play well: - Criminalization. - Equity. Making things illegal is crucial for the proper functioning of Agora, but for minute issues it is too harsh. If the CotC goes and illegally assigns my 10,000 CFJs the ID numbers Sparta0000-Sparta9999, that's OK, but if e assigns a regular CFJ the ID number ":-)", that isn't. There are some things that we haven't made illegal-- like creating a thousand proposals-- because we've forgot, or because we don't think that anyone would really do that. It's also a bad idea to make clauses like, say, "Bankers shall act in good faith", because the punishments of the criminal court are too harsh for such vague clauses. Some scams are approved of; some scams are not. I tried to create 10,000 CFJs because I hoped to create a flood of Blue VCs (although, as I had forgotten, the CotC could just assign them as linked cases and give all the VCs to one person). But there is no real point, as far as I can see, to the "demon proposals", so I do not support them. The scam with all the Human Point N partnerships that forced a proposal through was good; a similar scam that created a Power=4 rule to give the scamsters dictatorship would not be. Of course, I may be biased toward considering my own scams proper, but that just makes my point: it would be much better to leave this sort of punishment to the public than to the opinion of one judge. And personally I think that even the worst scam should only have limited punishment available if it does not actually break any rules; having clearly defined rules is conducive to scamming as a whole (and perhaps even Agora as a whole). Equity is becoming more and more powerful because some seemingly crucial parts of the game are located in contracts. And indeed, it has been proposed that we give equity jurisdiction over the Rules. But equity is not in the Spirit of Agora, because it basically forbids scams altogether and is structured to give full compensation for any hint of improper play. It also has altogether too much power over judgements. I don't want this ultraconservatism. A kudos-like system is, I think, a happy medium between the criminal and equity courts, but as I've said, there must be a point to them. I can't bring myself to care about props. In real life, when we want a limited punishment-- to people, or to countries-- we make it economic. Therefore I think we should have a kudos-like system that punishes "honorless worms" with currency. Previously, crops seemed more of a meaningful currency; now it is VP once again and maybe chits. But it has been a long time since Rules-defined currencies meant much, so I hope that some general-purpose currency remains stable enough that a contract amendment is sufficient to provide such a system.
