Subject: seeking ideas for quota

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 17:35:03 -0700

In some respects, the current quota system discourages good programming style.
For example, if you want to create an object by making a generic parent and a
child, that uses up two instead of one.  And if you want to have a generic pet
as well as generic dog and rover, then you have used up three.

A friend was recently making a library, and was puzzled by the fact that the
code is much neater if each reference book is its own object, but for quota
reasons he was tempted instead to use a long list of lists stored on a
property.

I think in these examples the quota system is discouraging good style.

The opposite problem applies as well-- just limiting the number of objects a
person can have doesn't stop them from storing _The Guiness Book of World
Records_ on one slot of an object.  Or storing long conversation logs.

On the other hand, I don't have a better idea for how to manage this.
Does anyone else have any inspiring new approaches?

-- Amy

---

From: "Edward L. Wallace" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 07:40:06 -0700

I certainly wouldn't call our approach inspiring -- but here it is, nonetheless.

On DragonsFire, we have some different breakdowns of players - consistent
with the Pern theme we recreate.  For example, each major 'area' has it's
own builder character - to make a change of authority, and cooperative work
much easier.  Each Hold, Hall or Weyr, therefore has a 'builder' who owns
the rooms of these places, as well as any necessary 'craftwide', 'weyrwide'
or 'holdwide' objects.

The quota for each of these builders depends upon their nature.  Crafters
are encouraged to have smaller Halls and more room for objects (we are
considering making a *second* builder character for objects to support
Craft-owned objects -- i.e. 'purchasing a flute' rather than @creating it
yourself).  Holders are mid-sized, and Weyrs are the largest.

When you reach *players* we have a set 'beginning' quota and are working on
methods of quota "raising".  At one point we decided (but never implemented
-- we've been busy) to create some automatic quota-raising commands.  When
someone has used up their first installment, they do: @morequota, and get a
second installment - and perhaps later on, a third.  After this we assume
that any building/programming is getting from more of a personal nature to a
'public' nature and involve the administration in assigning an adequate
level of quota.

We felt that initial lower quotas would help encourage people to consider
proper use of their objects - and avoid wasted ones.  The automatic ability
to raise quota allows for some self-governance and room for expansion. 
Lastly the administration only REALLY gets involved when the quota requested
is relatively significant. 

Just some ideas from us Pernies gone MOO.

Ted