On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 10:07, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Create a new rule with title "Balancing", power 2, and text:
>        During the first Eastman week of each month, the Treasuror CAN and
>        SHALL perform the following actions, collectively known as
>        Balancing, in sequence:
>
>        1. Establish the performance value of each interest group as
>           follows:
>           A. Justice: (the number of cases submitted in the previous
>              Agoran month that were not issued a valid judgement within
>              one week of being assigned) / (the number of cases submitted
>              in the previous Agoran month)
>           B. Efficiency: The mean of the following value for each office:
>              - If the office has no monthly or weekly duties, 0.
>              - If the office has monthly duties but no weekly duties, 0
>                if its monthly duties were performed in the previous
>                Agoran month; 1 otherwise.
>              - If the office has weekly duties but no monthly duties,
>                (the number of weeks its weekly duties were not
>                performed in the previous Agoran month) / 4.
>              - If the office has both monthly and weekly duties, ((the
>                number of weeks its weekly duties were not performed in
>                the previous Agoran month) + (1 if its monthly duties were
>                not performed in the previous month)) / 5.
>           C. Legislation: (the number of proposals submitted in the
>              previous Agoran month whose outcomes were not ADOPTED) /
>              (the number of proposals submitted in the previous Agoran
>              month)
>           D. Participation: (the number of Agoran decisions initiated in
>              the previous Agoran month whose outcome was FAILED QUORUM) /
>              (the number of Agoran decisions initiated in the previous
>              Agoran month)
>        2. For each interest group:
>           A. generate a random number between 0 and 1 to at least three
>              significant digits.
>           B. Increment the value of the interest group by one if the
>              generated number is equal to or greater than the performance
>              value of the interest group; otherwise decrement its value by
>              one.
>        3. Create a public message that includes all relevant values
>           from this process.

What if, instead of these balancing rules, each interest group does a
stock (cheque) buy-back every quarter, and the only way to cash in a
cheque between quarters is to sell it to another player?

Specifically:

* Make cheques of each interest group a currency so players can exchange them.

* At the start of each quarter, every interest group does a cheque
buy-back. It works like this. I'll use Efficiency as the example.
 * Efficiency earns 50 Coins.
 * Each player can declare sell offers. E.g. I offer to cell 3
efficiency cheques for 5 Coins each, and an additional 2 efficiency
cheques for 10 Coins each.
 * After the offer period is over, Efficiency spends its 50 Coins to
buy as many cheques as possible, starting with the lowest sell offers
and working its way up.

Benefits:
* Self-balancing: We still have the property that if officers slack
off, then efficiency cheques are worth more, simply because fewer will
be issued.
* Nobody needs to explicitly keep track of how many reports were missed.
* We can have fun speculating about prices and selling cheques to each other.

Other interest groups:

If Justice also gets 50 Coins per quarter, that would mean judging a
CFJ is more lucrative if fewer are being called. If we don't like that
we could grant Justice a number of Coins depending on the total number
of CFJs called, which shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

Same for participation, though it seems desirable to me that
participation is rewarded more when people aren't voting.

Reply via email to