5/22/2017 Topic: Mars Provisional Colonial Government Hutton	I think some players objecting to the claim is the exact nature by which the afore mentioned guild wars will come to pass. Looking forward to just being a spectator of the next one.
5/22/2017 Topic: Construction Hutton	Names should just be what sounds natural. "Chemical Plant." Icon consistancy should be sufficient.
5/22/2017 Topic: Moon Charter - Research Centers Hutton	Agreed. I think for transparency purposes you need to name the research station after the city it represents. If I'm checking to make sure everything is kosher I'll just count the active research stations and make sure no city names occur twice. I would prefer it be the Mayor of Madrid who is responsible for raising the issue if someone that is not authorized is purporting to research on behalf of Madrid. It should be up to the City Manager if whether or not he wants to actively investigate those things. In fact, I suspect preferences for how active or hands off a city manager may be the most important division in the constituencies voting for city manager if we ever get someone vying to challenge the incumbent for the position.
5/22/2017 Topic: Selling Structures Hutton	When people referred to "moving" structures they meant selling them where they stand. Zip555 was expressing concern that players with multiple accounts might exploit the feature by "moving" structure between accounts so they don't count towards the net worth loss when you liquidate or move your HQ.
5/22/2017 Topic: Moon Charter - Research Centers Hutton	Regarding pooling of points to be complicated. I think brokering the trading of points is a power that should be bestowed on the City Manager, not one he is obligated to exorcise. If we want stability in research production right now-and I do see the wisdom in that, particularly while the ink is still wet on the treaty-we can make that the case by making our desire known to Jimbobdaz and he will beholden to us as his constituents. 5000 turns from now we might be more comfortable allowing some flexibility. 5000 turns from now the earth may be mostly rules by a completely different player base that is unhappy with the constraints we set up and I'd rather give them a clear path to make the changes they want instead of tempting them to start the Second Moon Insurection.
5/22/2017 Topic: Moon Charter - Research Centers Hutton	Another issue: what happens when a Corp Loses their office on Earth before the election. This can occur either because the HQ is destroyed or moves. I propose the incumbent should be allowed to continue research as normal until the next election.For one thing, I think it would create too strong a disincentive to challenge the City Manager in upcoming election if you had to shut down during that election even if you had a sure path to victory.
5/22/2017 Topic: Moon Charter - Principles Hutton	I took this as just a primer on the other three threads. The meat and potatoes are there. Please lend your thoughts to them, Sarah. This is something that needs to be rolled out promptly though to avoid a continuing civil war. You are, if I'm not mistaken, the Mayor of Madrid so you are welcome to build a research station under the terms currently on the table. I believe there is no effort to stop mayors from building right now in anticipation of the charter getting approved. One thing not clear in your proposals, Vulpex, is whose buy in is required to adopt the charter. I think we will have more legitimacy if we can get all of the Major (respected) Guilds and a majority of city leaders to sign on. It might also be wise to poll city leaders after the next election so Corps have an opportunity to organise their support or opposition.
5/22/2017 Topic: Moon Charter - Principles Hutton	I would like to have buy in from a majority of mayors. I feel that is important for the legitimacy of the charter.
5/22/2017 Topic: The Moon Charter Hutton	The Mayor of New York, and incidentally the Emperor of the freakin' planet, votes in favor of ratification.
5/23/2017 Topic: In need of a DIFINITIVE answer on mult-accounting. Hutton	Dread did specifically tell badmaw that if wanted to pay $5/month for multiple accounts that was fine with him. (I think that was in the Comms of the last beta). But I believe he was also assuming that keeping contracts locked until level 2 provided a sufficient curb to free account abuse. Do you think that this is not the case? Grandor aside, who seems to be a unique case of micro-management that most of us won't be able to achieve, I would cation low level players against pumping out as many ACP's as you can. You're better off bumping up the level of just a few structures. Maybe I'm playing the game wrong. Right now I have 9 structures and 12 ACP's just sitting around.
5/23/2017 Topic: The Moon Charter Hutton	Point of order: it is Jimbobdaz's perogative to press that issue (or not) in the event that the Mayor of Delhi fails to raise the issue themself.
5/23/2017 Topic: In need of a DIFINITIVE answer on mult-accounting. Hutton	The proxy war issue strikes me as a more important one than the economic boost. After toying with alternate accounts I have concluded that I will do far better economically by keeping everything under one asset screen than by dividing my attention between two. Maybe other players with more free time or more organized minds will get different results. But I also think Proxy Wars are very much within the spirit of a game about corporations with private armies fighting over resources and market share in space. I would like to see the Contract screen expanded to facilitate research into the relationships between corps. And a mechanism to hold sponsors of Proxy Wars responsaible in reparation trials. I don't know if everyone would find that fun, though. It might just be me.
5/23/2017 Topic: In need of a DIFINITIVE answer on mult-accounting. Hutton	What about adding a function to contracts to search by corporation and keeping old contracts archived. For me that would open up a whole new mini-game in the political arena. It's not even specific to multi-accounts, but if you follow the money you will see alliances that may be downplayed in public. "Is the friend of my enemy also my enemy?"
5/23/2017 Topic: The Moon Charter Hutton	I noticed we have neglected to address the grace period for deactivating research stations. We can't expect everyone to check in the turn an election is called, especially with players in different time-zones. Since the charter has already passed I believe this falls to the discretion of the City Manager. May I point out that 150 turns is just over a day. I believe we can reasonably ask everyone running for office to check the results within 24 hours of the result. Sin
5/23/2017 Topic: The Moon Charter Hutton	Also, Paris seems to have used the wrong thread to opt in.
5/24/2017 Topic: The Moon Charter Hutton	Rereading the charter, I realize we neglected to address non-research civilian structures. This is important because it can tip the balance in elections for City Manager. I had previously suggested that other construction be limited to a level 5 infrastructure factory of each type to be owned by the city manager. I figured a monopoly on Infrastructure would make it the loss of HQ bonus on other industry worth while. Or we can just leave it as it stands and let anybody build anything other than research.
5/24/2017 Topic: The Moon Charter Hutton	I take that to mean you would prefer an open door policy on non-research industry. Or an open door with the same cap. Your bias here has to be taken into account, from both directions. The job had to be worth having, but you shouldn't be able to hold onto it if most of the stake-holders have turned against you. Maybe we should just take a wait and see approach for now and have another convention on turn 10,000 to consider amendments if needed.
5/25/2017 Topic: Buying and Selling Issues improved Hutton	A dynamic that is still in place, and I don't know if this is a problem or there by design, is that transports of every size are put on a trajectory to reach a B/S power of zero on the same turn. I've noticed this when I have tried to stagger two transports to be going back and forth between a market. They will always end up operating right next to each other. Even if one arrives as the other is almost empty (or full) the second will suck up all the volume until they are equailized. It's not game breaking, but it doesn't feel right that if a bunch of units of different sizes arrive at a market at different times they will all always finish their bussiness within a turn or so. To break that you could leave B/S power as fixed to cargo capacity without regard to how much has been used. Or give units a slight boost to B/S for every consecutive turn a unit is performing a buy or sell order. That's if you think the issue I described is even an issue.
5/25/2017 Topic: Buying and Selling Issues improved Hutton	I didn't follow any of that. I understood that you were saying you can't do something because you would have to solve for everybody before you could solve for the first person and that would change the answer for everyone else, but I don't understand what situation that is preventing.
5/25/2017 Topic: Buying and Selling Issues improved Hutton	Are you saying a situation where you let a unit have more buying power than it's actual cargo space throws the calcualation for the other buyers into chaos? You could just let them split the remainder evenly. And if that fills up the next guy you split his remainder. Every body gets a piece when a big transport tops off it's cargo hull and pulls up stakes. The little units would benefit the most, proportionally.

---