On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 21:49, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 6:15 PM, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> 
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Thinking about this more, I'm not sure this is a benefit at all. If cheques' 
> worth is _inversely_ proportional to their prevalence (or, in the initial 
> draft, if a high performance value makes cheques' value likely to decrease), 
> then surely that incentivises _balancing_ activity between the four interest 
> groups? I would rather _unconditionally_ encourage activity in each one, as 
> the current coins system does.
>
> -twg

I more or less agree that this wouldn't really help with officer
participation, not for that reason, but because I doubt officers are
really motivated that much by wages. Speaking for myself, at least,
I'm being an officer to have fun, help out the game, and earn brownie
points with you all. I wouldn't do it just for the Coins. I guess if
the rewards were much higher, we'd more often see people temporarily
deputising to publish reports of vacant offices.

That being said, if we do assume Coins motivate people, I think there
is an argument for balancing. If officers aren't completing reports,
or people aren't judging CFJs on time, etc, it might be a sign that
the rewards aren't high enough relative to the other ways of making
money. So a system that automatically decreases the reward for things
people are already eager to do, and increases the rewards for things
people are not eager to do, may be desirable if we imagine Coins are
how people are motivated.

>From this point of view, Trigon's original proposal seems a bit closer
to mark than mine. Neither solution is the most direct way to address
the problem, but they both seem fun. I'm certainly not opposed to
alternative mechanisms that are also fun.

(If we make a new officer for handling this stuff, I propose Economist.)

-- 
- Falsifian

Reply via email to