DIS: Re: BUS: UNIX philosophy for proposals
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > While this does technically bring everyone closer to the same amount of > money, I'm not sure this is the best way to do it. This also doesn't fix > the gap in land ownership. I really think we need to do a map reset to > achieve maximum equality. So I've skimmed the proposals, and unless I missed it, these make no changes to exploration or apples. So I don't think a straight-up reset is a good idea. Current land activity takes for granted that the coin/corn bug opened up huge amounts of land, and even with the bug it was against self-interest to do so. Starting from scratch, the apple-cost of exploration is too high compared to basic supply, and the benefits are limited - you can hope to win any favorably-placed land you open up at auction, but that's far from guaranteed. And I don't think my minor fix in last week's proposals is enough, if you're starting from scratch. Once you get an orchard or two going, you're past the frustrating budget-every-step stage and land exploration becomes something worth considering (increasing the payday apple supply isn't a good idea either because that devalues orchards). So if you reset, I don't think it will work unless you (in the same proposal) make something to allow people to claim a starting stake of ~3 contiguous land. (Not automatic for all players, they should need to put some effort in, but by a non-competitive distribution mechanism - maybe even one that spreads starting stakes to different corners). And also - exclude zombies, as starting from scratch, the zombie-owners still will gain faster (both salary and movement bonuses). But I'm speaking from a position of wealth, and putting such a proposal together is another layer of complication. My plan is to see if the above can be done privately. I just won a bunch of land at auction, and when I pay for it I'm planning a giveaway which would probably get at least some of the folks who have bid and lost in the last month a better stake (basic = functional from a basic production view). If that doesn't work, reset away, but include some kind of accelerated staking.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: UNIX philosophy for proposals
I do like this quite a bit. If I'm honest, I don't think this is the absolute best way, but I don't know if we'll every discover the best way, so... this is good. I always imagined that I resolve the auctions in numerical order, so that clearly favors the bids placed on the lowest numbered auctions, which might be a little unfair, but I don't think it is too unbalanced. Overall, this of probably the best version. On Sat, Jul 14, 2018, 03:44 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Oh, I do read everything, don't worry. I've only skimmed your plan as yet, > but even with a cursory glance I see you've put a lot more thought into it > than me! > > I would rather keep everything in the proposal pool so I can refer to > things by ID number, instead of having to keep checking back to older > messages, so I'm not retracting it right now, but sure, I won't pend "From > each according to eir means" (or anything like it) until you're ready. > > I submit all proposals from my post yesterday that I have not yet > submitted, except "A new industry: sand and glass" (which, as Trigon > pointed out, is totally ineffectual in its current form). It's a bit silly, > but the reason I didn't do this at first was to help obscure my attempts to > declare apathy; since those have been objected to now there's no point in > keeping them away from the Promotor. :) > > I submit the following proposal. Text within [square brackets] is not part > of the proposal. > > -twg > > --- > Title: Frankenstein's land auctions > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: twg > > [ Here's another option: specific land auction rules that are a hybrid of > one > and five auctions. Pick your favourite? ] > > Amend rule 2004, "Land Auctions", by replacing the last sentence with the > following: > >For this auction, the announcer is the Cartographor, the > auctioneer is Agora, the minimum bid is 1 coin, and the authorized > bidders are all active players. > > [ The above bans zombies from bidding. ] > > Amend rule 2004, "Land Auctions", by appending the following as a new > paragraph: > > When a land auction ends, all bids by the winner of that auction on > other land auctions are withdrawn. > > [ The phrasing here is based on the assumption that auctions started in the > same message end one at a time rather than simultaneously, which I think > I > remember reading a CFJ about. The idea is that people can choose which > units > of land they are interested in (which is the principal advantage of the > five- > auction method) but can't dominate the market and win all the auctions. ] > --- > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On July 14, 2018 6:45 AM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > twg, in case you don't read all threads, please see my thread "Long > > > > Term Economic Reform Plan". In particular, I request that you delay > > > > "From each according to eir means" till next week. You may also want > > > > to read the rest of the thread. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Aris > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:00 PM Reuben Staley > > > > reuben.sta...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Comments inline. If there are no comments on a proposal that means I > would > > > > > > support it the way it is. > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 14:51 Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > > > > > [snippity snip] > > > > > > > Title: From each according to eir means > > > > > > > > Adoption index: 2.0 > > > > > > > > Author: twg > > > > > > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > > > [ This is an attempt at a reset/rebalance that strikes a middle > ground > > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > > completely erasing everyone's progress and leaving the current > > > > > > > > exponentially- > > > > > > > > growing inequality in place. I'm not positive that I struck the right > > > > > > > > balance > > > > > > > > but even if it's rejected it can be a starting point for discussion. > ] > > > > > > > > For each facility owned by a player, transfer all coins owned by that > > > > > > > > facility > > > > > > > > to its owner. > > > > > > > > For each zombie owned by a player, transfer all coins owned by that > zombie > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > its owner. > > > > > > > > Decrease the coin balance of each player to the square root (rounded > up to > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > next largest integer) of however many coins e possessed before this > > > > > > > > sentence > > > > > > > > took effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While this does technically bring everyone closer to the same amount of > > > > > > money, I'm not sure this is the best way to do it. This also doesn't > fix > > > > > > the gap in land ownership. I really think we need to do a map reset to > > > > > > achieve maximum equality. > > > > > > [snip snap] >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: UNIX philosophy for proposals
I mean, I routinely submit proposals like "The End of the World, Again" and "Q*Bert the Second", which are decidedly silly. On Sat, Jul 14, 2018, 03:48 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On July 14, 2018 9:44 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Title: Frankenstein's land auctions > > Side note, do people approve of the whimsical proposal names? I can switch > to more functional names if you like, it just seemed a little more... ah... > nomic-esque. > > -twg >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: UNIX philosophy for proposals
On July 14, 2018 9:44 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Title: Frankenstein's land auctions Side note, do people approve of the whimsical proposal names? I can switch to more functional names if you like, it just seemed a little more... ah... nomic-esque. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: UNIX philosophy for proposals
On July 13, 2018 10:00 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > While this does technically bring everyone closer to the same amount of > > money, I'm not sure this is the best way to do it. This also doesn't fix > > the gap in land ownership. I really think we need to do a map reset to > > achieve maximum equality. Yes, I'm not entirely satisfied with it either. But a full reset feels unfair to the people who have already been putting effort into the economy. If we can adjust it so that it's at least somewhat more accessible for new players, I'm not convinced that it's entirely necessary to erase all progress so far. I have a vague idea for a land equalisation proposal similar to this one, but I'm not quite ready to submit a proposal just yet. > I don't recall who, but someone said that each different auction system had > > its own benefits, which I agree with. I really think alternating between 5 > > auctions and one is the best way to run these auctions. So let it be known > > that I while would support this, I think there's a better way to do it. I'm about to submit a different proposal that keeps some of the advantages of the 5-auctions system; let me know what you think? > Too cheap, and also I don't really like having all of this information > > under the assets rule. I suggest moving all the library special details to > > another rule. I did um and ah about the cost - in my original draft, it cost 5 lumber and 5 paper (with similarly higher upgrade costs). But I realised that most people only have a small number of facilities, so it would take a really long time for the library to pay for itself. I agree it _seems_ cheap but I think it needs to be in order to be useful. I'm not averse, though, to raising the cost if several people think it wise - although it must be said that it's not a priority since this proposal will probably not be got to for at least a couple of weeks. I respectfully disagree about the position of the special details; I see the existing upkeep costs rule as the "core" system, and this as an alternative that overrides it for library-owners, and so I feel that keeping it with the mechanism that _causes_ the override (the definition of libraries) makes more sense. (But again, if everyone disagrees I wouldn't object strongly to moving it; it's not like the position of the rule in the ruleset makes any difference to its interpretation. I think.) > Yeah but how do you get sand? And glass should be given a purpose, even if > > it is just as a building material. Ah, I completely forgot to add a new production facility for sand. My bad. Though, to be perfectly honest, this was not really polished enough for submission; I mainly included it as lorem ipsum in the hope that people would not bother reading all the text and not notice the declarations of apathy. :P > I object to all intents to declare apathy in the quoted message. Eh. It was worth a try. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: UNIX philosophy for proposals
twg, in case you don't read all threads, please see my thread "Long Term Economic Reform Plan". In particular, I request that you delay "From each according to eir means" till next week. You may also want to read the rest of the thread. Thanks, Aris On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:00 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > > Comments inline. If there are no comments on a proposal that means I would > support it the way it is. > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 14:51 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > [snippity snip] > > > > --- > > Title: From each according to eir means > > Adoption index: 2.0 > > Author: twg > > Co-authors: > > > > [ This is an attempt at a reset/rebalance that strikes a middle ground > > between > > completely erasing everyone's progress and leaving the current > > exponentially- > > growing inequality in place. I'm not positive that I struck the right > > balance > > but even if it's rejected it can be a starting point for discussion. ] > > > > For each facility owned by a player, transfer all coins owned by that > > facility > > to its owner. > > > > For each zombie owned by a player, transfer all coins owned by that zombie > > to > > its owner. > > > > Decrease the coin balance of each player to the square root (rounded up to > > the > > next largest integer) of however many coins e possessed before this > > sentence > > took effect. > > --- > > > > While this does technically bring everyone closer to the same amount of > money, I'm not sure this is the best way to do it. This also doesn't fix > the gap in land ownership. I really think we need to do a map reset to > achieve maximum equality. > > [snip snap] > > --- > > Title: Crackdown on minting (reindustrialisation edition) > > Adoption index: 2.0 > > Author: twg > > Co-authors: > > > > [ As I've said before, I think coin production needs to go altogether, but > > destroying the refineries outright seems unnecessarily unfair, so my > > preference is for this edition - though I haven't come up with anything > > to > > use steel for yet. Also, G., I apologise for my appalling timing in > > proposing > > to render your contract ineffective! ] > > > > Amend rule 2483, "Economics", by: > > - adding "steel" to the list of currencies (appropriately numbered) > > - adding "steel" to the list of refined currencies > > - adding "coins" to the list of unrefinable currencies > > - removing "coins" from the list of refined currencies > > > > Amend rule 2564, "Processing Facilities", by changing "coins" to "steel" > > in the > > Processing Details of Refineries. > > --- > > > > I like this, and if I had it my way, steel would even become an important > building resource, like cloth is now. > > [spin] > > --- > > Title: Back to one auction > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: twg > > > > Amend rule 2004, "Land Auctions", by replacing the first sentence of the > > last > > paragraph with the following: > > > > If at least one land unit is selected by the process described above, > > the Cartographor CAN and SHALL initiate an auction with each selected > > land unit as a lot. The authorized bidders for this auction are all > > active players. > > > > [ Note that, unlike the original version, zombies are banned from bidding. > > ] > > --- > > > > I don't recall who, but someone said that each different auction system had > its own benefits, which I agree with. I really think alternating between 5 > auctions and one is the best way to run these auctions. So let it be known > that I while would support this, I think there's a better way to do it. > > --- > > Title: This planet is too chilly > > Adoption index: 2.0 > > Author: twg > > Co-authors: Trigon > > > > [ Coal is not my idea; I lifted it from Trigon's proto-proposal. It > > restricts > > processing facilities a little, which is perhaps a good thing, but it > > also > > increases the number of land units you need to maintain self-sufficiency, > > which is a bit of a barrier for new players. I figured I might as well > > put > > it in the pile. ] > > > > Amend rule 2483, "Economics", by adding: > > - "coal" to the list of currencies (appropriately numbered); and > > - "coal" to the list of unrefinable currencies. > > > > Amend rule 2561, "Asset Generation with Facilities", by changing the third > > paragraph to read in full: > > > > At the end of every Agoran Week, for each Processing facility, as > > many times as possible, Agora destroys a number of assets in the > > possession of that facility and replaces them with a corresponding > > number of different assets, as specified by the rule that creates > > the facility. > > > > Amend rule 2564, "Processing Facilities", by changing every occurrence of > > the > > word "to" to "and 1 coal to". > > > > Amend rule 2563, "Production Facilities", by adding the following new list > > item, appropriately numbered: > > > > Coal Mines > > - Build Cost: 5 lumber > > - Upkeep Cost:
DIS: Re: BUS: UNIX philosophy for proposals
The problem with this methods is that people may wish to only change something, if a separate change goes with it. With the current conditional voting and the fact that it would be spread across many distributions, that isn't a possible consideration. On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:51 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > UNIX PHILOSOPHY > > Simple, short, clear, modular, and extensible proposals that each do exactly > one thing. > > Like I said a few days ago, I have a few tweaks to propose to PAoaM if we are > going to keep it around. I think having small proposals makes it easier to > decide which way to vote on them, and means individual terms that people > approve of can be adopted without requiring agreement to everything, so I've > split them up and plan to pend them five at a time (when the Assessor gets > around to resolving proposal 8061 ;)). > > I've arranged the below proposals in approximate descending order of urgency > and ascending order of controversialness, to ensure the most important things > and most generally acceptable things go through first. > > I submit the first five proposals listed below. > > Text within [square brackets] in this message is not part of any proposal. > > -twg > > --- > Title: Separation of church and state > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: twg > Co-authors: Trigon > > [ The blots amendment is lifted verbatim from Trigon's version of the repeal, > so I listed em as a co-author. ] > > Amend rule 2559, "Paydays", by removing the list item "3 incense". > > Destroy all temples. > > Amend rule 2563, "Production Facilities", by removing the list item "Temples" > and all bullet points subordinate to it. > > Destroy all incense. > > Amend rule 2483, "Economics", by removing incense from the list of currencies > and from the list of unrefinable currencies. > > Amend rule 2555, "Blots", by adding the following paragraphs: > > If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from > emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from > emself by announcement. > > At the beginning of each quarter, half (rounded down) of each > fugitive's blots are destroyed. > --- > > --- > Title: Reining in the Von Neumann machines > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: twg > Co-authors: Trigon > > Amend rule 2564, "Processing Facilities", to read in full: > > The following facilities are defined as processing facilities: > 1. Refineries >- Build Cost: 4 lumber and 8 stones >- Upkeep Cost: 3 coins >- Processing Details: 1 ore to 5 coins > > 2. Mills >- Build Cost: 6 lumber and 6 stones >- Upkeep Cost: 3 coins >- Processing Details: 1 lumber to 5 paper > > 3. Looms >- Build Cost: 8 lumber and 4 stones >- Upkeep Cost: 3 coins >- Processing Details: 1 cotton to 5 fabric > > Flip the ranks of all processing facilities to their default values. > > [ That last sentence relieves the Cartographor of keeping track of the legacy > ranks that don't mean anything any more. ] > --- > > --- > Title: From each according to eir means > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: twg > Co-authors: > > [ This is an attempt at a reset/rebalance that strikes a middle ground between > completely erasing everyone's progress and leaving the current > exponentially- > growing inequality in place. I'm not positive that I struck the right > balance > but even if it's rejected it can be a starting point for discussion. ] > > For each facility owned by a player, transfer all coins owned by that facility > to its owner. > > For each zombie owned by a player, transfer all coins owned by that zombie to > its owner. > > Decrease the coin balance of each player to the square root (rounded up to the > next largest integer) of however many coins e possessed before this sentence > took effect. > --- > > --- > Title: Crackdown on minting (scorched-earth edition) > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: twg > Co-authors: > > If "Crackdown on minting (reindustrialisation edition)" has been adopted, or > if > its voting period has ended and the votes on it are such that it will be > adopted, this proposal has no effect. > > Amend rule 2483, "Economics", by: > - adding "coins" to the list of unrefinable currencies > - removing "coins" from the list of refined currencies > > Destroy all refineries. > > Amend rule 2564, "Processing Facilities", by removing the list item > "Refineries" and all bullet points subordinate to it. > --- > > --- > Title: Crackdown on minting (reindustrialisation edition) > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: twg > Co-authors: > > [ As I've said before, I think coin production needs to go altogether, but > destroying the refineries outright seems unnecessarily unfair, so my > preference is for this edition - though I haven't come up with anything to > use steel for yet. Also, G., I apologise for my appalling timing in > proposing > to render y
