New Angry Goblin Agreement

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

BTW, it's also never going to happen. I say that as someone who helped make the original agreements, and who knows how difficult it is to get consent from everyone at those rolls. What you're asking for is for anyone new to the roll to have a lesser chance: why would they agree to that?

Disregarding the challenging bookkeeping requirements, I think there's a decent argument to make that the player dynamics would incentivize such a change. Assuming the systems starts from scratch at the moment of agreement, everyone who is voting is actually going to end up being in the "old guard" when the agreement has been in place a while. It's the people who can't yet vote because they aren't yet rolling who end up penalized.

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

By definition, any system you propose will have winners and losers. By definition, half the people at the current roll will be losers if the system changes (... and in all honestly, I think some of the people who think they would be "winners" will actually be losers in the new system).

I don't think it's necessarily true that half the people will be losers in the new system. Who do you think would end up being losers?

The way I'm thinking about it, you would be less likely to win after only a few rolls, but also it would be less likely that it would take very very many rolls. It would reduce the tails of the probability distribution, or reduce the variance. The number of rolls you'd have to attend in order to win would end up being more predictable and consistent. I think everyone wins under this change, except I don't see how it could be implemented and operated.