On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 03:15 -0500, omd wrote: > If so, I think there should probably be some way to trade PP more > explicitly than spamming coauthorship (and proposals), which has a > certain elegance but, at least in its current form, would be rather > slow and uncertain. It could even be based on that mechanism, some > way to spend PP to grant a proposal extra PP gain or something... Allowing points to be freely tradeable, or tradeable at a minor cost, is something we've done tons of times in the past, and IMO it didn't work out to be all that interesting. I also wanted to stick to the simplest implementation of my idea that I could
> Which reminds me: to me, naming fake coauthors (i.e. people who didn't > actually contribute to the proposal) would prima facie seem vaguely > Bad Form. You mention in the proposal comment that you expect bribery > and team-forming to take place, so I assume you don't see it that way, > but it might be worthwhile to explicitly ENCOURAGE this in the rule > text. Not sure if other players see it like that. I was wondering about this. It certainly isn't too hard to proto a chaff proposal (perhaps privately) to allow your coconspirators to "make their mark" on it and give you a legitimate reason to mark them as coauthors. That said, it does seem likely that many people will resort to the cruder method rather than the more elegant one. (And the way I see coauthoring someone that didn't work on the proposal, is that it's inelegant and regrettable on that basis, but it's not oversteppingany boundaries or doing anything I'd consider to be unfair play.) -- ais523
