On 9/17/24 4:52 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
I don't like the perverse incentives that crystals create. If someone else writes a proposal that touches a lot of rules, then I'm incentivized to vote AGAINST that proposal for economic reasons, even if it's good. I try not to do that, because it's happened to me before (under a previous system, I believe) and it is *deeply* frustrating when it does, but I don't like that the incentives are there in the first place. I'm not sure there's a way to address this concern without fundamentally changing what crystals look like, since the entire point is to reward rule changes.
Allow multiple players to own the same crystal simultaneously? (This is probably not straightforward under the current rules.) It still grants the proposer a small advantage each time -- provided e isn't already an owner -- but on an absolute basis it doesn't disfavor any current holder of the crystal(s).
Personally I'm kind of meh about the current crystal system anyway. Barring a mass repeal, it's going to take ages for a player to win that way, and one plausible (but frankly boring) path is that a set of repealed rules' crystals just grinds high enough over time to make it happen.
Granted, if the repeal of *stones* eventually generates the first *crystal* win, that is moderately amusing.
-- Mischief Collector, Illuminator Hat: steampunk hat Vitality: ghostly Bang holdings: 0
