BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

I like this.  However, I do believe that 1 SP per 3 open proposals might be a bit much (that would be 4 SP right now).  For that reason, I must vote   Also “artist” should be “Player” in that last section.

I find it too complicated

because it encourages elitism (never a good thing in a nomic)

Over-elaborate with no clear connection to the “stimulus packages and employment and occupation” theme that’s emerging.

Interesting concept but far to complicated.

The whole Appendix contains the word Artist instead of Player, and I copied pasted from the Quorum definition.
[spite]
Good point. Maybe making it depend on player count? I did so to make Sensualism appealing now that the Proposal flow is good, and less and less useful as soon as the game slows down.
What about 1 SP plus 1 every 4 Proposals, but no more than 3?

It’s complicated if you feel Platonic. Most of the tim you could just not care. And this is a meta Dynsty, so we don’t need a strong theme, in my humble opinion.

Just to know. Are you voting against Platonism or against the whole concept? My hands slipped while writing “a couple of simple exemples” :P

I enjoy this proposal a lot.

“Employees ... shall not be counted in the subset of artists that forms Quorum”
This is badly flawed. I won’t Self kill since I do not want to lose a SP. Please vote AGAINST this, but tell me if you’d vote FOR in case Platonism was removed/simplified and the bug fixed. Thank you.

“an happy”
I’ll never re-read a Proposal enough.
Sigh.

I would prefer to see more proposals using the existing elements rather than just creating more and more elements. If “Employers” passes we would already have some kind of faction-like theme. Also I would like to see proposals that handle SP as a think you are given and/or taken away, rather than something you can spend directly.

The quorum thing here is a scam, as it doesn’t remove existing votes by Employees.

1) As the title says, this was born as an experiment of mixing two (three) very different factions mechanics. I still think that’s a cool concept.
2) SP economy is something hard to predict, but I think we need producers and consumers as well as traders, and at this point every new player would bring 3 SP into the economy and every s/k would take away 1. This means VERY slow deflaction that would bring some careless players to become Employees of the faster players, that could hoard SP’s from fallimentary players. It would take a long time. That’s static, and I do not like it. Everybody should get a chance. Having only 3-4 Players with SP Power is more elitary than having a few players without voting Power on a few Proposals.

[ais] Good catch, 2 scams in a sentence is quite cool.

I like the flavour to a degree, but it doesn’t seem to be a clear vision in this form, and it looks like there’s scams.

“become Sensualist” is undefined.

> When adminning Proposals, all Against votes from Platonism Followers must be counted as the number of Rations that Follower had when voting, if that number is included in the EVC.

Breaks the game. A proposal can legally have quorom of FOR and AGAINST votes.

ELy: to some extent, i’ve voting against Platonism - that should be a separate proposal at best. I would also say the wording needs to be tightened up. From what I understand, I like the basic concept, but I can’t really evaluate the proposal itself at this point.

Well I’m not native English speaker (as you could easily guess) nor an experienced Nomicker so I usually expect at least 2 iterations for my proposals to pass, if they do at all. I still post them as Proposals since that’s the best way I’ve found to get serious and abundant feedback about them. But I see how it can be annoying.
Then I have this tendence to make huge comprehensive universal proposals that for some reason always fail. :)

Too complicated, and also certain mechanisms are (heh) too platonic. Any variable that’s tracked in the GNDT shouldn’t change unless there’s someone changing it, who can therefore update the GNDT at the same time.

[pavitra] I adressed this in a previous version, then changed it back. The new version should be ok.

Good idea but makes it too easy for scams.

per Kevan

Way too complicated.

especially platonism