Alexis wrote: > How would people feel about changing to a model where rewards are primarily > awarded by officers in response to certain events? E.g. the Assessor would > give proposal rewards, the Tailor Glitter rewards, the CotC judging rewards.
That would certainly make things easier to keep track of. Except for Glitter (see below), there's already an officer recording each event associated with an award, so I don't see that it would add much to their workloads (though I'd want their own confirmation on that before giving my unbridled support). And it would massively simplify things for the Treasuror. If we required the reward to occur within 14 days of the action ("in a moderately timely fashion"?), rewards could be made in the officer's next weekly report. That would also make issuing rewards an action that could be deputised for. Here's a proto: Amend Rule 2496 ("Rewards") as follows: Replace its first two paragraphs with the following: Each time a player fulfills a reward condition, the officer associated with the condition CAN once, and SHALL within 14 days, grant the associated set of assets to the player. Below is a list of reward conditions and their associated assets and officers. Append "(Assessor)" to the first list item. Append "(Arbitor)" to the second list item. Append "(ADoP)" to the third list item. Append "(ADoP)" to the fourth list item. Append "(Herald)" to the fifth list item. The only thing I'm a little concerned about is glitter. Rewards for proposals, CFJs, reports and theses are all clearly associated with one officer when they are awarded, but glitter might be in response to a variety of different actions. I don't think the Tailor ought to have to keep track of the votes on every proposal to see when someone earns an orange ribbon. Here's a proto that gives the Tailor the responsibility to evaluate the number of coins due and award them, but not detect when a glitter-event occurs. It also tidies up some of the ribbon language, and extends glitter to work for all colours of ribbon (except black, obviously). Amend Rule 2438 ("Ribbons") as follows: Replace the paragraph starting "While a person qualifies..." with the following: A person qualifies for a type of Ribbon if e has earned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7 days (including earlier in the same message). Replace the list items starting "Gray" and "Transparent" with the following: Gray (A): Once each month, the Tailor CAN by announcement nominate a person for a Gray Ribbon. E is ENCOURAGED to do so in the same message in which e publishes eir monthly report. A person qualifies for a Gray Ribbon if e is the most recent person to be so nominated. [This allows the recipient some leeway about the timing of their ribbon, to prevent em from losing the opportunity to get a Transparent Ribbon on a technicality.] Transparent (T): A person qualifies for a Transparent Ribbon if, at any point during the last 7 days, e qualified for at least 5 other types of Ribbon. [With the other rewordings in this proposal, this should come out equivalent to the previous wording even though it does not explicitly mention "awarding" or "earning".] Move the list item starting "Emerald" so that it falls between the list items starting "Green" and "Cyan". [This was bothering me.] Append the following: While a person qualifies for a type of Ribbon: - If e has not owned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7 days, any player CAN, by announcement, award em that type of Ribbon. - Otherwise, if e has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or the corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon, e CAN, by announcement, award emself that type of Glitter. Amend Rule 2602 ("Glitter") to read: For each type of Ribbon, there is a type of Glitter with the same name. An attempt to award Glitter is INEFFECTIVE if the type of Glitter is not specified. Awarding Glitter is secured. Each time a player is awarded a type of Glitter, the Tailor CAN once, and SHALL within 14 days, grant the player a number of coins equal to the number of players who did not own the corresponding type of Ribbon at the time of the award. [Alternatively R2602 could be merged into R2438 (first para) and R2496 (second para) to further simplify] > In the past, Agora has often taken an extremely pragmatic approach, where > the officers in question would be given the power to make such awards even > if they were incorrect, with penalties for officers who abuse their > position and possibly mechanisms to undo them. What are others' thoughts on > moving towards this model? Personally I'm not terribly worried about the risk of abusive officers. As much as we pontificate about "protecting against scams", Agora is not really as hyperliteralist as it seems - it's not quite as democratic as BlogNomic's votes on whether someone meets a victory condition, but when a scam is perpetrated that's obviously in poor taste, the responsible party is rarely allowed to keep eir winnings. I can recall two incidents where officers badly abused their offices for personal gain, the first being when I rearranged proposals' order as Assessor to change their effects, and the second when D. Margaux awarded emself infinite political favours as Clork. Both were eventually reversed by proposal or ratification, mine because it was unnecessarily disruptive to everyone else and D. Margaux's because it was incredibly boring. (Honestly the most interesting part was the CFJ on whether e deserved an infinite fine.) As Aris said at the time: > Winning by flagrant rule violations is generally thought to be uncouth. -twg