On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 11:50 ATMunn . <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Title: A Reward for Obedience
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-Author(s):
> AI: 1
>
> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Badges of Honor"
>
Nit: I prefer Honour :P
> {
> Badges of Honor are an indestructible, player-owned asset. The Referee
> is the recordkeepor for Badges of Honor.
>
> At the beginning of every Agoran month, the Referee CAN and SHALL
> award a Badge of Honor to any one player who is eligible for a Badge of
> Honor, if there are any.
>
This should specify the method of awarding a Badge of Honor (e.g. by
announcement). Additionally, it should specify a time limit; "in a timely
fashion" should be fine.
The restriction that e CAN only award a Badge of Honor to someone eligible.
> It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Referee to award more than one Badge of Honor
> in an Agoran month.
>
> A player is eligible for a Badge of Honor if all of the following
> statements are true:
> * E has made at least 1 action in the last Agoran month.
>
A message to a public forum should be sufficient for this.
> * E does not have negative Karma.
> * In the last Agoran month, e has not had a Card issued to em.
> * In the last Agoran month, e has not had eir Finger Pointing found
> Shenanigans.
>
I dislike this condition; it discourages people using our fragile justice
system even further. Making a false accusation should be fine, because
often it's not clear whether a violation was actually a violation in
advance.
> * In the last Agoran month, e has not broken any of eir pledges.
>
The pledge rule requires pragmatically declaring that the pledge is broken,
by calling it in. It would significantly ease the burden on the
recordkeeper to switch to this, since they would only have to read through
for called-in pledges, rather than for all violations of pledges.
>
> If, at any time, any player has 6 or more Badges of Honor, and e has
> not won via this rule previously, e can win the game by announcement.
>
This should destroy all eir Badges of Honor. I'd actually prefer it reset
all of them, but because they're awarded subjectively, that may not be a
great way to do it.
> }
>
> I thought this would be a nice, simple way to reward players who are
> "obedient" without being too overpowered. I'm sure it has flaws though, so
> that's why I'm posting it as a prototype first.
>
I like the concept in general, but have a few concerns. Another option
would be, rather than making this a separate system, tying it into Ribbons
and making it a Ribbon award. This has significant benefits and drawbacks.
One of the bigger reservations here is that this encourages a player to do
very little. For instance, a player who does nothing but vote will be
eligible every month, since they don't set themselves up for breaking one
of the rules. An officer in a complex office is likely to make mistakes,
and it's easy to issue em green cards as a result.
> Also, there's a few things I'm not really sure I'm completely happy with.
> First thing: I'm not exactly sure how to word what a Badge of Honor *is*.
> I think I did it right, but I'm not sure.
>
I'm not either, at this point...
> Second thing: I don't really know what office should keep track of and
> award these. My initial thought was the Referee, since e already keeps
> track of cards and such.
>
This is actually a fiarly intensive duty, since it requires looking through
an entire month's worth of mail to find actions (recordkeeping decisions is
bad enough, since you have to trawl through votes and people aren't always
kind enough to vote in reply to the original message starting the decision.
And that's only one week long). A better way, perhaps, would be to require
to explicitly declare themselves eligible within the first week of the
month, subject this to some form of challenge, and then have the award be
made in the second or third week. This would also get around the platonism
problem: if someone declares themselves eligible and nobody else
double-checks them, then they get their badge, oops.
> Third thing: I don't really know how the whole Karma system works, since
> it's quite new. Should I even bother including it?
>
Karma is fairly subjective. I think there's pros to including it
(encourages "good behaviour" without necessarily aligning that to the
rules) and cons (players can gang up to deny another player access to Honor
Badges by ensuring eir Karma is negative).
> Last thing: Is it necessary to include "In the last Agoran month, e has
> not broken any of eir pledges"? I think you can be issued a card for
> breaking a pledge, right?
>
Responded to this above.
-Alexis
