Thursday, May 10, 2007

Proposal: Patent Rights


Adminned at 13 May 2007 04:19:58 UTC

An addition to Wages, 2.2.2

2.2.2 Patent Rights

When a Worker creates a Machine Part that works correctly the first time it is used in the Machine, the Worker may request Patent Rights. When Patent Rights are in force, any time the said Part works correctly in the Machine, the worker gains $5 and may once (and only once per times the part worked correctly) add $5 to eir Net Worth in the GNDT.

Working Correctly means that the initiator requirements were met and the effect caused at lease one (1) other part to meet its iniator requirements.



05-10-2007 21:59:28 UTC

hmm. I do like the fact that it gives incentives to people to make the machine more complicated and the parts interconnected.


It makes making an infinite loop valuable. Also it causes an infinite loop of sorts in the rules. Every time the machine runs you get the ability to increase your net worth. Every time you change a GDNT tracked value (like net worth) the machine runs.

Also it seems like it might cause workers to get too much money, compared to Management.



05-10-2007 22:24:52 UTC



05-10-2007 22:33:31 UTC

against per Enderbean


05-10-2007 23:26:55 UTC



05-11-2007 00:37:22 UTC

I did think about perhaps the company would also get a bonus, or perhaps the management would get it (a company bonus that gets paid out. Everyone wants a piece of the pie…

What would be a way to make it less ‘infinite loopy’?


05-11-2007 01:19:24 UTC

include in the updating the wages something about it not setting off the machine probably?


05-11-2007 01:52:33 UTC

Or require the person running the machine to update the GDNT. Required changes to the gamestate by other rules get taken care of by step one of the machine in action, and won’t trigger the machine to start up. Since its already running :)


05-11-2007 01:56:52 UTC

Oh and if you don’t want it to give an incentive for loops in the machine, you can make it so that they only make money on it once per time the machine runs.

In light of your comment about management getting a piece of the pie with a different rule I think I like this proposal :)


05-11-2007 02:48:37 UTC


How about I redo this…


05-11-2007 14:24:06 UTC

you have to vote NO, not IMP, to self kill


05-11-2007 19:49:52 UTC


I know, but I was trying to get that $1 for not nay saying {:0)
I gotta self-kill to make a third go at this though.