My problem with having fixed assets per player per week is that that
will cause massive accumulation of wealth on the part of inactive
players. I believe I've mentioned this before in this thread,
actually. I did want to give everyone the same amount of assets a
week, but I was scared that inactive people would get a ton of wealth
and, if they ever decided to rejoin the game, they would be much more
wealthy than the active people, so that makes no sense.
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > 1. every player with an amount of papers less than 2 an amount of
>> > papers so that eir paper balance is equal to 2.
>> >
>> > [ This makes it so that impoverished players can move a little each week
>> > and make some proposals. ]
>>
>> I now present the Aris Asset Holding Contract (AAHC):
>>
>> {Aris CAN amend, repeal, or retitle this contract by announcement.
>> This contract accepts all assets. Aris can cause this contract to
>> transfer any asset in its possession by announcement.}
>>
>> Then I transfer all of my papers and apples to the AAHC every week.
>> I'm not really sure how to get around this problem without using
>> something along the lines of effective control (see the blue cards
>> rule).
>
> Needs-based supply for the "poor" is one of the big failings of the
> current system, to get rid of. Just give everyone something each X,
> but less (e.g. 2/month, not 2/week).
>
> Even without the hole you mention, this ends the economy in terms
> of playing it. 2 paper/week is more than I need, you give it back
> when I use it, I never have to participate. Give everyone 2/month,
> regardless of need, and they need to budget, and then to earn
> more they need to participate.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Trigon
