The fact is, there is such a glut of paper that no one who is "playing"
the minigame is bothering to try to produce it. It's not a barrier.
It is, as you say, a "stop and think" barrier. That's a good thing.
And it's not a requirement to "play" given that no one is using the
paper to "play". You get a couple action points (paper) a month.
More if you're an officer. Nothing to do with land, movement, bidding,
any of that. That there's an elaborate minigame (that no one is using)
to get more paper doesn't have to affect that at all.
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Perhaps we shouldn't have an "economy". Perhaps we should have a
> mini-game that people play because they enjoy it. I don't see terribly
> many people actively participating in the economy because they want
> paper. At same time, I do see paper making the main game less fun for
> players. If the economy isn't fun, people shouldn't be obliged to play
> it. We all come here to have a good time and build a community. We
> come because we want to interact with the rules. Coercing people into
> a mini-game doesn't actually help anyone. Do you honestly believe that
> we're having more fun with paper than without it? Do you think it's
> really getting people into the mini game? Do you think that people who
> play the mini game because they're forced into it will actually enjoy
> it? How is coercing people into doing things they don't want to do
> sensible, when Agora is a game and a nomic, where people play by
> changing things, not by grinding for resources? And if they are "super
> feels bad" and "unfun", if they don't serve to make people enjoy their
> time here, why should we keep them? If the economy isn't something
> people will play without coercion (mind you, I'm not asserting that
> that's the case) why should we keep _it_?
>
> Basically, my idea is that people should play the economy to win and
> for perks, but not as a requirement. Those reasons should prove
> sufficient to encourage engagement, and if they aren't, that's a
> problem we need to fix. Keeping paper around simply isn't doing anyone
> any good.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:19 AM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > No, the economy shouldn't be optional. The only way to encourage engagement
> > with it is to make it unoptional in some way, which it really isn't now.
> > CFJs should always be free. Proposals can and should be interacted with.
> > Paper is a super feels-bad unfun way to do it. Better, though, than nothing.
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Unless a consensus forms one way or the other, I'll implement your
> > > paper removal suggestion in a separate proposal contingent on this one
> > > passing.
> > >
> > > As for the economic argument, I disagree, for reasons I really should
> > > have spelled out when submitting the proposal. The problem isn't that
> > > people don't have enough paper. The problem is that people have to use
> > > paper in the first place. When an action has a cost, someone is much
> > > less likely to take it, even if the cost is actually relatively minor.
> > > [1] [2] Every time I write a proposal, I think "Is this really worth
> > > one of my two monthly papers?" I would write many more proposals if
> > > that thought didn't enter my head. IIRC V.J. Rada has also mentioned
> > > this problem. Look at CFJ calling rates before and after they became
> > > free. I'll bet that they skyrocketed; I certainly know I've called
> > > many more CFJs recently. A player shouldn't even have to think about a
> > > cost when they pend a proposal. The limit of five isn't much of an
> > > inconvenience, because a) it's huge; b) it resets every week; c) the
> > > Promotor or another player can always pend a proposal for you, and has
> > > every incentive to do so (right now it's pretty much charity if
> > > someone does that); and d) it's not phrased as an economic cost. The
> > > combination of those factors means that it feels less like a price,
> > > and more like a tacked on limitation, which I for one would not
> > > regularly worry about.
> > >
> > > I hope that my explanation and two proposal solution might be enough
> > > to convince you to at least vote PRESENT?
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > [1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bestiary_of_Behavioral_
> > > Economics/Zero_Price
> > > [2] https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/mini-
> > > encyclopedia-of-be/zero-price-effect/
> > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 11:21 PM Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This would be fine but it completely nullifies paper. A better way to do
> > > > this while preserving the economy would be to get rid of paper and looms
> > > > then add lumber to the list of unrefinable resources. Also, everyone
> > > > gets
> > > > paper once a month so participation in the economy is completely
> > > > optional
> > > > still. And if anyone somehow uses up all their paper, I can just give
> > > > you
> > > > some. Though that's not going to happen anytime soon because paper is
> > > being
> > > > consumed slower than it's being produced. All in all, there are quite a
> > > few
> > > > things wrong with this proposal that would prevent me from voting for
> > > > it.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 23:58 Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandlight17@
> > > gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I've gotten sick and tired of restrictions being placed on gameplay to
> > > > > force people into economies. I have no objection to the economy
> > > > > affecting ordinary play, but it should be truly optional. I love how
> > > > > these days people CFJ whenever they have a concern, without worrying
> > > > > about it cutting into their reserves. Proposals are a contribution to
> > > > > the game. Most of them try to make gameplay better for everyone. We
> > > > > should not discourage people from contributing; if anything, we should
> > > > > reward them.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is deliberately minimal. I'm leaving paper in place to allow it
> > > > > to be repurposed for something else. People should not spam proposals,
> > > > > so my proposals allows five pends per week. The Promotor gets another
> > > > > five for other people's proposals, on the assumption that e will use
> > > > > them to pend proposals that players have forgotten to pend, or if
> > > > > another player legitimately bumps into eir cap.
> > > > >
> > > > > I submit the following proposal. I'm going to pend it unless someone
> > > > > finds a technical problem, or we decide on a better solution to the
> > > > > paper situation.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Aris
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Title: Free Proposals
> > > > > Adoption index: 1.0
> > > > > Author: Aris
> > > > > Co-authors:
> > > > >
> > > > > Change Rule 2445, "How to Pend a Proposal", to read in full:
> > > > >
> > > > > Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by
> > > > > proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or
> > > > > "not pending" (default).
> > > > >
> > > > > Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending"
> > > > > by announcement, but cannot use this method more than five times
> > > > > each week. The first five proposals pended by the Promotor of which
> > > > > e
> > > > > is not the author do not count against eir weekly limit.
> > > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
>
