Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 12:57:15 PM

Quote from: Lynn on April 30, 2021, 12:53:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 02:40:32 PMCredits ARE money tho. Just imagine all our dearly beloved leaders just stoped printing money altogether and instead of several different currencies we had the earth credit. not paper, not coins but electronically stored in your account. It is still money.

I think that's the only way to really make post TOS work. Maybe there's an exchange rate built around a bunch of things that are in high demand but are not able to be replicated, or an energy based 'mega-credit' or the like. Even in a society in which you can replicate an unlimited number of blueberry muffins, you only have one original Mona Lisa, a limited number of houses/lots on a California skyline, and one Sisko restaurant.

Many Sci-Fi RPGs already do this, because there will always be scarcity, you might be able to solve it in almost everything, but you can't solve it in everything.

If we ever find ourselves in a far more equable reputation based economy, then I'll go back to being a conservative "capitalist" that thinks the current system is good enough.

Sure hardcore socialist think rep economies are just capitalism, but it's a practical step in the right direction.

Quote from: Rhedyn on April 30, 2021, 01:33:24 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 12:57:15 PM

Quote from: Lynn on April 30, 2021, 12:53:30 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 02:40:32 PMCredits ARE money tho. Just imagine all our dearly beloved leaders just stoped printing money altogether and instead of several different currencies we had the earth credit. not paper, not coins but electronically stored in your account. It is still money.

I think that's the only way to really make post TOS work. Maybe there's an exchange rate built around a bunch of things that are in high demand but are not able to be replicated, or an energy based 'mega-credit' or the like. Even in a society in which you can replicate an unlimited number of blueberry muffins, you only have one original Mona Lisa, a limited number of houses/lots on a California skyline, and one Sisko restaurant.

Many Sci-Fi RPGs already do this, because there will always be scarcity, you might be able to solve it in almost everything, but you can't solve it in everything.

If we ever find ourselves in a far more equable reputation based economy, then I'll go back to being a conservative "capitalist" that thinks the current system is good enough.

Sure hardcore socialist think rep economies are just capitalism, but it's a practical step in the right direction.

Who sets the reputation? China's social score system IS a reputation economy. I wouldn't want to live in a place with that.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 01:44:56 PMWho sets the reputation? China's social score system IS a reputation economy. I wouldn't want to live in a place with that.

The idea is that you have access to a certain quality of resources based on your reputation. So if you were highly valued, you could have that beach front property, while a someone will no contributions to society could only have a house.

The general thought behind rep economies is that your rep goes up as individual people rate you. Where the opinion of highly reputable people is worth more than someone with less rep. The balancing of that algorithm and making sure less public works are weight appropriately would be an endless job requiring constant improvement. The assumption I have seen is that virtual intelligences would have a full-time job keeping everything straight and making sure people don't over-pull a resource they qualify for without a reputation loss.

For example, a Game store owner that let people play games in his store would receive rep increases from everyone that approved of that practices and probably has a higher reputation score than a Game store which did not allow anyone to play in it. In our current society, the latter Game store owner has the advantage if he sells more product, while the other one has to hope that letting a group play D&D in his backroom for years translates to sales at some point or he just loses money even though his contribution to the community is higher than the former Game store owner.

Quote from: Rhedyn on April 30, 2021, 02:10:02 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 01:44:56 PMWho sets the reputation? China's social score system IS a reputation economy. I wouldn't want to live in a place with that.

The idea is that you have access to a certain quality of resources based on your reputation. So if you were highly valued, you could have that beach front property, while a someone will no contributions to society could only have a house.

The general thought behind rep economies is that your rep goes up as individual people rate you. Where the opinion of highly reputable people is worth more than someone with less rep. The balancing of that algorithm and making sure less public works are weight appropriately would be an endless job requiring constant improvement. The assumption I have seen is that virtual intelligences would have a full-time job keeping everything straight and making sure people don't over-pull a resource they qualify for without a reputation loss.

For example, a Game store owner that let people play games in his store would receive rep increases from everyone that approved of that practices and probably has a higher reputation score than a Game store which did not allow anyone to play in it. In our current society, the latter Game store owner has the advantage if he sells more product, while the other one has to hope that letting a group play D&D in his backroom for years translates to sales at some point or he just loses money even though his contribution to the community is higher than the former Game store owner.

Show me how you plan to keep such a system from being manipulated or 'gamed', not to mention that any 'overarching authority' placed over it will be able to manipulate it at will.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 30, 2021, 02:20:46 PM

Quote from: Rhedyn on April 30, 2021, 02:10:02 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 01:44:56 PMWho sets the reputation? China's social score system IS a reputation economy. I wouldn't want to live in a place with that.

The idea is that you have access to a certain quality of resources based on your reputation. So if you were highly valued, you could have that beach front property, while a someone will no contributions to society could only have a house.

The general thought behind rep economies is that your rep goes up as individual people rate you. Where the opinion of highly reputable people is worth more than someone with less rep. The balancing of that algorithm and making sure less public works are weight appropriately would be an endless job requiring constant improvement. The assumption I have seen is that virtual intelligences would have a full-time job keeping everything straight and making sure people don't over-pull a resource they qualify for without a reputation loss.

For example, a Game store owner that let people play games in his store would receive rep increases from everyone that approved of that practices and probably has a higher reputation score than a Game store which did not allow anyone to play in it. In our current society, the latter Game store owner has the advantage if he sells more product, while the other one has to hope that letting a group play D&D in his backroom for years translates to sales at some point or he just loses money even though his contribution to the community is higher than the former Game store owner.

Show me how you plan to keep such a system from being manipulated or 'gamed', not to mention that any 'overarching authority' placed over it will be able to manipulate it at will.

You try to do so, but you don't succeed.

It's not like our current system isn't gamed. An actual practical system is going to have flaws and corruption.

One of the counters is that the people placed in key positions in the system will have to earn a high reputation in the first place. Ideally this filters out a lot of assholes. The less assholes in charge, the less likely assholes will be able to game the system because the non-assholes will create rules to stop them. Not a perfect solution, but fundamentally democratic in nature.

Quote from: Rhedyn on April 30, 2021, 02:10:02 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 01:44:56 PMWho sets the reputation? China's social score system IS a reputation economy. I wouldn't want to live in a place with that.

The idea is that you have access to a certain quality of resources based on your reputation. So if you were highly valued, you could have that beach front property, while a someone will no contributions to society could only have a house.

The general thought behind rep economies is that your rep goes up as individual people rate you. Where the opinion of highly reputable people is worth more than someone with less rep. The balancing of that algorithm and making sure less public works are weight appropriately would be an endless job requiring constant improvement. The assumption I have seen is that virtual intelligences would have a full-time job keeping everything straight and making sure people don't over-pull a resource they qualify for without a reputation loss.

For example, a Game store owner that let people play games in his store would receive rep increases from everyone that approved of that practices and probably has a higher reputation score than a Game store which did not allow anyone to play in it. In our current society, the latter Game store owner has the advantage if he sells more product, while the other one has to hope that letting a group play D&D in his backroom for years translates to sales at some point or he just loses money even though his contribution to the community is higher than the former Game store owner.

We already have a system where those who contribute to society get richer, it's called free market capitalism. AND with paper/coin it also has something your system doesn't:

I can be a shitlord in the web and walk into a store, hand them my money in exchange for their product and we don't need to know jack shit about one another.

Your system will devolve into a puritanical rule where only that which the moral "majority" deem accetable will exist.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 02:41:54 PMWe already have a system where those who contribute to society get richer, it's called free market capitalism. AND with paper/coin it also has something your system doesn't:

My capital gains and dividend statements disagree with you.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 02:41:54 PM
I can be a shitlord in the web and walk into a store, hand them my money in exchange for their product and we don't need to know jack shit about one another.

Amazon & DTRPG does that too.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 02:41:54 PM
Your system will devolve into a puritanical rule where only that which the moral "majority" deem accetable will exist.

Oh that is a critique of the system. Everyone else can exist, but will have less worth if they personally buck against moral trends. Part of the algorithm corrections would be putting in tolerances for acceptable deviations. But settled issues like, "racism = bad" wouldn't be changed.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on April 28, 2021, 06:52:00 PM
Money used to exist in TOS and was phased out by TNG because most writers don't understand economics.

When you have the tech to take dirt apart and turn it into food, clothing, housing, etc what happens to economics?

ST writers looked at how modern tech and automation has made many jobs obsolete and tried to profect that into the future, accepting that current cosioeconomic systems are not adapting to the changing technology in the world today.

Whenever i hear someone rightard saying " (Anyone who disagrees with me) doesn't understand economics." I hear someone admitting they don'tt get that technology is changing the world the old economic models were based on.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 02:41:54 PM

Quote from: Rhedyn on April 30, 2021, 02:10:02 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 01:44:56 PMWho sets the reputation? China's social score system IS a reputation economy. I wouldn't want to live in a place with that.

The idea is that you have access to a certain quality of resources based on your reputation. So if you were highly valued, you could have that beach front property, while a someone will no contributions to society could only have a house.

The general thought behind rep economies is that your rep goes up as individual people rate you. Where the opinion of highly reputable people is worth more than someone with less rep. The balancing of that algorithm and making sure less public works are weight appropriately would be an endless job requiring constant improvement. The assumption I have seen is that virtual intelligences would have a full-time job keeping everything straight and making sure people don't over-pull a resource they qualify for without a reputation loss.

For example, a Game store owner that let people play games in his store would receive rep increases from everyone that approved of that practices and probably has a higher reputation score than a Game store which did not allow anyone to play in it. In our current society, the latter Game store owner has the advantage if he sells more product, while the other one has to hope that letting a group play D&D in his backroom for years translates to sales at some point or he just loses money even though his contribution to the community is higher than the former Game store owner.

We already have a system where those who contribute to society get richer, it's called free market capitalism. AND with paper/coin it also has something your system doesn't:

I can be a shitlord in the web and walk into a store, hand them my money in exchange for their product and we don't need to know jack shit about one another.

Your system will devolve into a puritanical rule where only that which the moral "majority" deem accetable will exist.

Wow, what are you smoking? Please keep it the hell away from me.

In our modern system many people who work and contribute have next to no money, and almost all they get goes right to basic necessities. Meanwhile those born into positions of affluence have fortunes while doing very little if anything, and even people who cause great harm to many others get rich from doing it.

Quote from: Rhedyn on April 30, 2021, 02:56:05 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 02:41:54 PMWe already have a system where those who contribute to society get richer, it's called free market capitalism. AND with paper/coin it also has something your system doesn't:

My capital gains and dividend statements disagree with you.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 02:41:54 PM
I can be a shitlord in the web and walk into a store, hand them my money in exchange for their product and we don't need to know jack shit about one another.

Amazon & DTRPG does that too.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 02:41:54 PM
Your system will devolve into a puritanical rule where only that which the moral "majority" deem accetable will exist.

Oh that is a critique of the system. Everyone else can exist, but will have less worth if they personally buck against moral trends. Part of the algorithm corrections would be putting in tolerances for acceptable deviations. But settled issues like, "racism = bad" wouldn't be changed.

That is certainly a way to squash free thought and innovation. Any system based on what others "think" or "feel" about you is fundamentally morally and ethically corrupt, because it is not based on some tangible system of laws but rather on the current zeitgeist, which is wildly unpredictable, inconsistent and often (as the SJW's like to put it) on the wrong side of history. No thanks.

Quote from: shuddemell on April 30, 2021, 03:01:55 PMThat is certainly a way to squash free thought and innovation. Any system based on what others "think" or "feel" about you is fundamentally morally and ethically corrupt, because it is not based on some tangible system of laws but rather on the current zeitgeist, which is wildly unpredictable, inconsistent and often (as the SJW's like to put it) on the wrong side of history. No thanks.

Are you against free and fair democratic elections? You can say all those things and they can feel true, but the foundation of what makes the free world free is what others "think" or "feel" about politicians. Instead of right of blood or right of might, our leaders must win a popularity contest. It's not perfect, but I'll take it over feudalism.

So why not write your own SFRPG based on your views and try to kickstart it?

Create a scifi future setting where there are heroic straight conservative libertarian shitlords battling against the ravening hordes of libtards, SJWs, feminazis, LGBTQ monsters, socialists, communists, NAMBLA members, etc?

Maybe even call it "Shitlords of the stars!"

Quote from: matt swain on April 30, 2021, 03:12:58 PM
So why not write your own SFRPG based on your views and try to kickstart it?

Create a scifi future setting where there are heroic straight conservative libertarian shitlords battling against the ravening hordes of libtards, SJWs, feminazis, LGBTQ monsters, socialists, communists, NAMBLA members, etc?

Maybe even call it "Shitlords of the stars!"

40K already has Space Marines vs T'au

Quote from: Rhedyn on April 30, 2021, 03:09:07 PM

Quote from: shuddemell on April 30, 2021, 03:01:55 PMThat is certainly a way to squash free thought and innovation. Any system based on what others "think" or "feel" about you is fundamentally morally and ethically corrupt, because it is not based on some tangible system of laws but rather on the current zeitgeist, which is wildly unpredictable, inconsistent and often (as the SJW's like to put it) on the wrong side of history. No thanks.

Are you against free and fair democratic elections? You can say all those things and they can feel true, but the foundation of what makes the free world free is what others "think" or "feel" about politicians. Instead of right of blood or right of might, our leaders must win a popularity contest. It's not perfect, but I'll take it over feudalism.

There's a difference between electing politicians through a (largely performative and highly influenced by the media) popularity contest to deal with bureaucratic nonsense behind the scenes while the rest of us (mostly...at least for now) carry on with our lives, and the quality of our lives being determined by the whims of the moronic mob.

Not that I have much faith in the democratic process regardless.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 02:42:56 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 28, 2021, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 02:08:16 PM

Quote from: Rhedyn on April 28, 2021, 02:00:07 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 01:32:53 PM

Quote from: Rhedyn on April 28, 2021, 01:25:00 PM
Sounds like a Sci-fi with history written by the victors that would be both strange and alien for players to interact with.

Dude Star Trek was/is considered commi fantasy where the Federation is basically fascist. It's the backbone of Utopian Sci-fi that all is not perfect even if the original authors intended it to be.

ST is commie fantasy only for commie addled minds. It's capitalistic, meritocratic even with replicators because there's still thing replicators can't replicate.

It's also for individual freedom, free speech and fights against the borg, who ARE the commie wet dream.

Bro they don't even have money in human society and you're projecting capitalist values on them?

Bro they totally have money.

You need to say "in human society" and yet:

The Federation and money

Outside of Earth, money and other forms of currency were still used in the 23rd and 24th century, by the Federation itself, individual Humans, and other Federation species. One form of such currency was the Federation credit.

The Human philanthropist Carter Winston acquired a vast personal fortune during the late 23rd century. (TAS: "The Survivor")

In 2368, a Vulcan master doubled the price of a meditation lamp upon learning that Tuvok and Kathryn Janeway were Starfleet officers. (VOY: "The Gift")

Notably, the crew of the USS Voyager, faced with severe resource limitations after being flung into the Delta Quadrant, treated rations on replicator and holodeck use as currency and traded these among themselves. (VOY: "The Cloud", "Twisted", "Parturition", "Meld", "The Chute")

Bartender Quark had repeated financial interactions with Federation personnel. On numerous occasions, Starfleet officers gambled to win latinum at Quark's, including Julian Bashir, Thomas Riker, and Jadzia Dax. (DS9: "Statistical Probabilities", "Playing God", "Business as Usual", "Change of Heart", "Defiant"; TNG: "Firstborn") His bar also routinely extended credit to its patrons, including Federation citizens and members of Starfleet. (DS9: "Little Green Men"; VOY: "Caretaker") In 2372, he sold Quark's Treasure – a damaged Ferengi shuttle which had belonged to him – for scrap after it was disabled in the Sol system, and was given enough to cover passage back to Deep Space 9. (DS9: "Little Green Men") Later that year, Benjamin Sisko threatened Quark to collect on five years' "back rent" that was unpaid, though the actual motivation behind the threat was not fiscal. (DS9: "Bar Association") Quark later stated that he was in debt to some unnamed Humans, but considered defaulting on them a trivial matter. (DS9: "Body Parts") In 2373, he indirectly caused damage to a cargo bay, and was informed that he would have to bear the burden for the repairs, though it was not clear if this burden was financial in nature. (DS9: "Business as Usual") When Quark rescued Gaila from a Federation starbase after he was arrested on Thalos VI, he had to pay a fine before he could be released. (DS9: "The Magnificent Ferengi")
It was not specified that the fine was owed or paid to Starfleet or the Federation.
Other mentions

    Sometime in the 2250s, Harcourt Fenton Mudd programmed a number of android duplicates of himself with the phrase "if I had any money, I'd be sipping jippers on a beach somewhere." (ST: "The Escape Artist")

    Captain Kirk offered to reimburse a group of miners on Rigel XII for lithium crystals in 2266, but he was rebuffed in favor of bartering for Mudd's women. (TOS: "Mudd's Women")

    In 2285, Leonard McCoy wanted to pay a smuggler to transport him to the Genesis Planet. (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock)

    In 2364, Beverly Crusher bought a roll of cloth at Farpoint Station and had her account on the USS Enterprise-D billed. (TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint")

    That same year, while playing the role of the title character in a Dixon Hill simulation, Picard stated a rate of $20 a day plus expenses to Jessica Bradley, who was convinced that someone was trying to kill her. She accepted and gave him a "c-note," or $100, as an advance. Later in the simulation, he wished to purchase a newspaper but did not have any money, and was told by the vendor that he could catch him next time. (TNG: "The Big Goodbye")

I was with you up to this part. I don't think a fictional story on a holodeck referencing money means the Federation uses it anymore.

QuoteIn 2366, Jean-Luc Picard purchased a Horga'hn on Risa. (TNG: "Captain's Holiday")

    In 2368, Commander William T. Riker tried to get information out of Amarie. She complimented him on her husband and told him to "drop a few coins" in her jar. He told her that he did not carry any money, but managed to tempt her by teaching her a song. (TNG: "Unification II")

    In 2370, when Lieutenant Worf and his son Alexander Rozhenko visited the Klingon outpost on Maranga IV, Alexander came to Worf asking for money, stating that he could see Molor's head in a box for 50 darseks. Worf replied that the man who told him this was just trying to take his money. (TNG: "Firstborn")

    As of the 24th century, the Bank of Bolias was a major financial institution, and Bolarus IX had a market economy that fluctuated in value. (DS9: "Starship Down", "Who Mourns for Morn?")

Some alien societies still use money. The Ferengi for a notable example of still having currency in a world full of Replicators.

But we have numerous incidents after TOS where the Federation characters declare that they don't use money anymore. I chalk it up to Roddenberry being naieve about currency, Capitalism, and hand waving away exactly how they "don't use money anymore". And subsequent writers scratching their heads and going "What the fuck is this shit?"

But well before that it is established the federation still uses money, they call it credits.

Yep. They say they use something like credits, and then baldly state they don't use money anymore. *shrug*