Honestly I'm about to take a 6-week+ near total internet break (may
drop in once or twice but otw won't be engaged). Enough time left in
this next week to finish the tournament and dispose of some land but
that's it.
So you've got my general opinions on balance (keep zombies, auctions,
don't do a full reset without offering a big land grant and plenty of
non-aether land) and rough-protoed the points idea, but I'll have to
leave the rest to you all, I trust you :)
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Okay, I've had an idea. There's a sequence of changes to the current
> economy that would end up with us still having land, but also adopting
> G.'s point-based model. However, the sequence of operations is too
> complex to be done in one go, so we're going to need to do this over
> several weeks. Please note that this is a bit on the long side, and
> there is a request for comments at the end.
>
> May I present the Revised Massive Reform Plan™:
>
> Sequence of Operations:
> 1. Execute "Crackdown on minting (reindustrialisation edition)"
> 2. Make steel replace coins in all facility roles they currently
> serve. We can diversify this by adding in coal and/or glass later.
> 3. Execute "Separation of church and state"
> 4. Execute "From each according to eir means", or some variant thereof.
> 5. Execute what I'm tentatively calling the "Point Installation Act".
> This would replace all uses of coins (but not steel), so we would have
> points as the base currency and everything else as a derived
> mini-game.
> 6. Create a win condition based on the economic currencies.
>
> Proposed Timetable
> * 1-3 should be done this week. This sets everything up, without
> changing too many things at once.
> * 4-5 should be done next week. If we go through with this plan, we
> shouldn't do 4 until we're ready to do 5. It should logically be done
> right before 5, as that's the major switch, and we can't really do it
> twice. twg, this means that I am asking you to consider pulling "From
> each according to eir means" from this weeks distribution.
> * 6 can be done next week or the week after that. The reason it has to
> be done soon is that if 1-5 happen, but 6 doesn't there will be no
> point in continuing land. I'd suggest something built on G.'s three
> asset plan, but that's something we can figure out later.
>
> Benefits:
> [You can skip this section if you already agree and/or you don't want
> want to listen to me ramble]
>
> 1. It creates a strict hierarchy of gameplay.
>
> Base -> Points -> Land
> Fig 1
>
> This means that each level of the hierarchy of the hierarchy is
> allowed to affect the next one, but not the other way around. Points
> turn into the base currency used for most operations. Land represents
> the advanced level where the previous levels can be translated into a
> win. However, no one is forced to participate at a higher level than
> they want to, which removes the problem of people being annoyed
> because most gameplay is disrupted by economic problems. Instead, we
> have isolation, the same way in a computer there's the kernel, then
> the OS, and then user programs (yes, a massive oversimplification, but
> you get the point).
>
> 2. It gives land an end purpose, something it is currently lacking. At
> the end of this process, people would be able to use land to win the
> game.
>
> 3. It maintains a UNIX proposal system, where each one of the 6
> proposals does it's own small, clean change.
>
> 4. It incidentally switches the Land level of the economy to the
> industrial era (steel, coal and glass if those happen, and no
> temples).
>
> Risks:
>
> Okay, there's only one real risk here, but it's kind of a compound
> problem. Basically, it has to do with the fact that we'd be cutting
> this up into 6 proposals. There is a serious risk that one of the
> proposals will fail. 3 can fail without causing a big problem,
> although I hope it doesn't, as there's reasonably widespread support
> for it. 4 can also fail, although that would unbalance the new economy
> for a while. 6 could fail, but that would make land pointless. 1, 2,
> and 5 are critical for this process. 3, 4, and 6 are still important,
> but not essential. If any one of the critical items doesn't go
> through, and we can't fix it, then the entire plan fails.
>
> twg has already written the proposals for 1, 3, and 4. I am prepared
> to write 2, 5 if things are going well, and maybe 6.
>
> I hope I can get widespread buy-in for this. I'm combining twg's ideas
> with those of G. Because this keeps most of our economy in place,
> while still reforming it, I hope I can get both the "reform party" and
> the "land party" to vote for it. However, I'd like better statistics
> on how people are likely to vote. Does this proposal seem like a good
> idea?
>
> -Aris
>
