RE: spoon-discuss: Re: Proposal: Market Economy

["Harrison, Andrew" <andy.harrison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: zagarna [mailto:zagarna@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Agents may not trade Objects in return for a Game Action or
> > in return for the promise of a Game Action. [[eg. You can't 
> offer a > player some Object in return for them voting 'yes' 
> on your proposal.]]
> 
> Why this? I don't like it, bribery is the salt of democracy 
> ;) and how exactly
> do you plan to enforce it ?

This is exactly the point. Bribery is lot part of <legal> democracy, it just
happens behind the scenes. The point of that bit of the rule is that offer
such a bribe it is not legally binding. Any legal trade must happen as a
single event so you don't get one party holding back on their side of the
bargain. I'm quite sure that bribing may occur, but it should not be defined
in the rules. Maybe I should change it so that it says such trades are "not
legally binding" ie. you offer the bribe at your own risk and if the other
party doesn't come up with the goods (eg they don't vote for your proposal)
then tough.

> > All Players involved in a trade must submit the terms of 
> the trade, or an
> > agreement to previously submitted terms, to a public forum. 
> The trade is
> > deemed to occur when the Administrator (or other relevant 
> Officer) > publicly Recognises the trade.
>
> Even worse, why must the administrator recognize it? this 
> just generates clutter
> on the mailing list and slows the game.

The trade needs to be recognised by somebody. At the moment there isn't any
defined things we can trade, but once there is who is going to keep track of
them? Players aren't going to keep tally of their own objects, in the same
way as they don't keep their own score. I was going to create a new Officer
to deal with it, but I didn't want to put too much in one proposal. This is
just the groundwork, once this is revised to peoples liking and passed then
I'll add the rest of it.

> > A trade must not occur if the resulting ownership of
> > Objects produces an illegal or invalid game state, or if 
> one of the > Players involved in the trade would win the game 
> as a result of the trade.
> 
> So in the end what's the point in doing it?

I meant that you can't win as a direct result of the trade. Eg, if it
becomes possible to trade points, and you have 300 points you cannot trade
something for another 200 points cos then you'd have 500 points and win. You
could trade for 199 points and earn the rest by some other means, just not
through trading. Doesn't really matter at the moment cos thereis nothing to
trade yet!

--
The Kid