Re: [spoon-discuss] Proposals

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 11:19  PM, Craig wrote:

> > I'm also not sold on the virtue of trying to turn bandwidth into a 
> > game
> > object (Bandwidth Chits, in this case). Someone could decide that they
> > must be trade-able objects, and someone WILL find a way to exploit 
> > this --
> > maybe they'll stash them Elsewhere via the internomic-trade rule, then
> > bring them back later on. Trying to make bandwidth tangible is bound 
> > to
> > cause problems, IMO.
>
> Bandwidth is zero sum. That is, I cannot store bandwidth Elsewhere 
> when/if
> the Nomic Market gets off the ground (in Thermo we found it needs a 
> lot more
> work) without losing that bandwidth now. I can't cause the sort of
> too-many-proposals bandwidth prevents, since I only get the same 
> amount of
> bandwidth. And wouldn't it be a good thing to have people able to say 
> "I
> like your proposal and hereby give you the bandwidth to do it with" so 
> the
> correct person gets the points when it passes? In Thermo, we have to 
> destroy
> in order to create. Ordinarily we destroy our own Coins; if you don't 
> have
> enough you can get people to offer their Coins in support.

I think the problem is not too many proposals overall, but too many 
proposals within a short time. Dave's worried that we could stash away 
all our bandwidth every nweek for an nyear, then suddenly dump 11 
nweeks worth of proposals on em in on nweek.

Perhaps if there was an absolute limit to the amount of bandwidth an 
entity could spend in an nweek?

Or maybe Mr. A. could unilaterally shelve any proposal beyond, say, the 
30th on a given Ballot?

I'm tempted more by the first of these then the second; it prevents me 
from dumping a BW stash on nday one and forcing Dave to shelve everyone 
else's props.

--
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss