Sunday, August 24, 2014

Proposal: Inflation Inflated

Fewer than a quorum of players not voting AGAINST, 1 vote to 6. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 26 Aug 2014 01:20:07 UTC

In Rule 2.10 Inflation, replace “As a weekly action, the Broker may choose a percentage known as the Rate of Inflation from 5 to 10%, as determined by the formula (5+X)%, where X is a number from 1 to 5 generated randomly by means of the Broker’s choice. The broker may then reduce the Profits of all Sellers with a positive Profit by the Rate of Inflation.” with:

As a weekly action, the Broker may choose a percentage known as the Rate of Inflation from 100 to 120%, as determined by the formula (99+X)%, where X is a number from 1 to 21 generated randomly using the GNDT. The broker must then multiply the value of every pound amount in the current rule set by the Rate of Inflation. Then, the Rate of Inflation ceases to be known as the Rate of Inflation.

You understand the Proposal by now.

Comments

Sylphrena:

24-08-2014 20:57:13 UTC

imperial
“Profit is measured in Pounds, is an integer, may be negative, defaults to zero, and may not be less than -50.” Does this -50 count as a pound amount?

“...multiplied by a random number between 25 and 175 (generated without using the GNDT, and rounding down), then reduced by 10 (to a minimum of zero), then increased by a random number between 1 and 5…” Which of these numbers count as pound amounts?

Do the pound amounts in the Second-Hand Goods section count as “in the current rule set”?

I actually really like the mechanic but I’m not sure how situations like these would play out.

ayesdeeef:

24-08-2014 21:16:20 UTC

Good questions! Wouldn’t any number that is attached to a pound or dollar sign constitue a “pound amount” and any number that has no such unit not constitute a “pound amount”? Also, the Current Ruleset only signifies the Current Ruleset, as much as I clearly intended it to include the second hand goods page. I’d make a Proposal to fix this, but I’m really backed up with this two Proposals at a time rule (tear) So if someone could assist me in my plight… *stomps foot excessively* HINT HINT

RaichuKFM: she/her

24-08-2014 22:08:29 UTC

against If we keep pushing up the $150 goal will this ever end?

ayesdeeef:

24-08-2014 22:10:29 UTC

The current Inflation rule is even more disheartening to me.

ayesdeeef:

25-08-2014 00:29:48 UTC

I screwed this up - only prices in the second-hand goods page need to be increased by this rule, that should represent inflation as it is in the market place. Can I get a yay or nay on this thought from anyone?

Sprucial:

25-08-2014 03:46:53 UTC

Main issue with increasing all the numbers on the second-hand goods page is that its a lot of work for Kevan to do. If you’re going to do it that way you could just put a multiplier or something at the top of the page. Anyway, the current inflation is fine enough in my opinion.
against  for this version because of unforeseen consequences in changing all the numbers in the ruleset and/or vagueness in which numbers to change.

Kevan: City he/him

25-08-2014 08:32:50 UTC

against Manually multiplying 34 numbers does indeed sound rather boring. There’s actually no need for the Broker to have to do this, as it’s not using any secret information - it could just be an “if nobody has done so this week, any player may…” action.

BellEt:

25-08-2014 15:52:23 UTC

against Again speaking from intention, but the goal was to make it so players could eventually gain more Profit over time without selling/buying by preserving their money in Bonds to avoid Inflation.

PTSnoop_:

26-08-2014 08:13:49 UTC

against