Looney Labs Rabbits Mailing list Archive

Re: [Rabbits] Rabbit Only Items in Dangling Carrot (was Re:Gray'mids?)

  • FromMarc Hartstein <marc.hartstein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateSun, 28 Jan 2007 16:20:32 -0500
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 03:23:07PM -0500, Seth Ruskin wrote:
> >
> >This is interesting, because I'm also making a distinction here.
> >"Hoarding" is what I think of as the unintented drive toward keeping
> >points around in case they're *needed* for a later reward.  This is a
> >preference to spend dollars rather than points whenever possible
> >(spending dollars in preference to points on any carrot-marked items).
> >The extreme case of this is spending the minimum of one point on
> >Rabbit-only items and spending dollars on everything else.  I see this
> >as being quite different than eschewing a lesser reward in order to
> >save, or bank, points to be able to receive a larger reward later.  The
> >latter is a positive, and intended, outcome of the system.
> >
> >I'd suggest that the two-point variant system with variable "karma"
> >costs for rewards removes the incentive to "hoard" (no incentive to
> >hoard points, no ability to hoard "karma") and increases the incentive
> >to "bank" "karma" (you can get the small reward now or bank the "karma"
> >to spend on the bigger reward later).
> But, by your own definition of hoarding, I'd have to hoard Karma in case 
> they're needed for a bigger reward later, since I now have to spend _more_ 
> for bigger items. The current system requires 1 point, no matter the size, 
> to be able to get the reward (whether through points alone or points and 
> cash).

Unlike Points, Karma can't be supplemented with dollars.  Your choice is
whether to get these two small rewards at 1 Karma each, or save the
Karma for more interesting 1 Karma rewards later or to add up to a 5
Karma reward that's even cooler.  This is banking.  You *don't* have the
decision of whether you want to spend 1 Karma or 5 on the item you're
buying today, which is the one which potentially leads to hoarding.

Let me put it another way.  In my proposed system, the total number of
Rabbit-only rewards you can receive is based solely on the amount of
Karma you have earned by doing Rabbity stuff.  In the current system,
the total number of such rewards has a maximum equal to the number of
Points you have ever earned, which can be reduced by the decision to
allocate more than one Point to a single reward, or to allocate Points
to something other than Rabbit-only rewards.

Hoarding: Spending the bare minimum of points on today's purchase so
points remain to permit future purchases, instead choosing to spend
dollars.  In the extreme case, spending exactly one Point on any item
with a cost listed in Points, and never spending Points on anything

Banking: Choosing to forego today's reward in anticipation of a greater
reward tomorrow.

The 1 Karma per item method has the advantage of being almost exactly
like the current system, except without what could be perceived as the
"penalty" for spending Points on anything other than Rabbit-only
rewards.  The variable Karma cost idea is intended to address drawbacks
in that system's ability to correctly create incentives to earn Karma
(drawbacks which exist in the current system as well if you use the
degenerate point-hoarding strategy).

> I still don't why you think this solves what you perceive as a flaw.

If the above doesn't make it clear where I'm coming from here, I'll try
to address it when I write up a longer response to your other message
later.  I just wanted to address the above quickly while I was thinking
about it.

> So this isn't "me vs Marc", I encourage anyone who sees what I'm missing to 
> please speak up.

Oh, yes; more voices with any perspectives on this are encouraged.

Attachment: pgpe3VjKTttHR.pgp
Description: PGP signature