Re: [s-d] Some thought about Inflationary Measures

[Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

One of the basic flaws in the current B economy is there's nothing to 
spend your macks on, besides buying socks to get more macks. Macks are 
currently hyper-inflated, compared to when the RPG rules where in place. 
An m500 fine wouldn't pain a player today nearly as much as last season. 
Votes For Sale and the Rapier Rental Agency are awesome but don't affect 
the macro-economics. How can we cause players to care about gaining mack?

j

Jamie Dallaire wrote:
> This whole "bailout" thing j did yesterday got me thinking:
>
> When I first suggested creating the Beast, the main focus of this for me was
> the "Devour" Trick. The idea sprang from my wish to create something within
> the rules that would require that Players of B work together to prevent some
> greater evil from befalling all of us, or the game from being destroyed,
> etc.
>
> Manifestly, the beast wasn't quite up to snuff. Not enough of a major
> threat. The modified devour rule was another attempt, to force multiple
> players to give to the beast (most likely in an altruistic manner for some)
> to prevent devouration from occuring, for the sake of all players. But when
> it's happened so far, we either didn't care about the threatened rule or
> we'd just had some mega-macks scam happen anyway.
>
> But recent economic events pointed to by j's "Bailout" message offered up a
> handy model... Recession: it's an emergent phenomenon that springs from
> individual human actions, yet no single individual can really do anything
> about it without cooperation. And once a crash starts happening, it may be
> in many people's best individual interest (at least short term) to defect
> (sell off while the prices are still decent) rather than cooperate (hold
> onto assets and not contribute further to the crash), but ultimately that
> seems to work to everyone's detriment.
>
> Can we model something like that? (No, I don't want to have B modeling the
> world economy --- what I mean is something with similar pressures for
> cooperation which would favour many individuals, perhaps even everyone in
> the game, rather than the game putting pressure on individuals to compete).
>
> I don't know what form this could take, but if anyone has any ideas I think
> it would be quite interesting:
>
> Some challenges/requirements:
>
> - make it something we can't or at least won't just legislate out of
> existence if we fail.
> - make it non-zero-sum
>
> Maybe something modeled roughly on a prisoner's dilemma-type situation?
>
> BP
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>   

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