+pay for style would only apply to the mundane character, for, a mage character could say "I am using my fashion, make over, mask, etc ... spell/s". So a +pay for style for mundanes would have to be countered with a +check the mages for spells and +rolls. Who wants to do that?

You've obviously never been a staffer.

All I can say to you is that it's fine you have a world view in which this idea works...but opinions are not facts.

The gym is an example that I didn't complete.  Here where I live, there are a few free gyms usually tied to other organizations (YMCA, YWMCA, etc) that do offer simply a free place to go and play.  There's some people I know who shower at the local colleges, and there are people who live their lives in their cars and utilize many of these free places to do their cleaning.  Even more so, there are places that will let people do their laundry there and its for free.  You can also go out to the local college and use the broken machines, which always get 'broken' again if they get fixed, to wash and dry for free.  You just have to test them all and wait or be patient.  There are many ways to accumulate a nice looking personage and a clean state without it costing money.  In addition, a person who shoplifts all the time isn't paying money for the clothes they steal.  And if you think that a Shadowrunner with super mega-awesome stealth skills can't rip off a t-shirt from SOMEWHERE you'd be wrong.  Now, they might not show up in the glitter and gold of a rich person, but that's the ticket, that's where their RP skills come into play but not a system.

Tear is talking about a psychological aspect of the words to indicate some manner of policy.  However, policies are things that by nature are incomplete without enforcement.  For instance, Jaywalking.  Jaywalking in my city is never enforced, not a single time that I've ever heard about, and tons of people Jaywalk.  I don't know which came first, but the fact of the matter is, it isn't enforced.  So, the only thing really stopping people from Jaywalking is the cars.  You might run into one or two people every seventh blue moon aligning up with mars, but you don't meet them ever regularly.  Thus, a situation where unenforced policy means people do what they are going to do.

If the argument has no bearing on enforcement, or actions, then just spread the philosophy.  We can write in big shiny letters, "Please, in your descriptions, keep in mind your character's lifestyle, skills, and all other relevant facts before descing yourself."  That may be something that should be there, but is also something that's a duh.  Saying instead, "It is the policy on this MUX that you ought to +pay for things you buy/use/desc throughout the day, but you get to choose how much they are worth, and we won't ever do anything to you if you do not do this +pay."  Is like saying, "Don't Jaywalk, but we won't fine you if you do, and we don't even pull people over or even have signs around or anything."

So, your idea, as a purely theoretical thing is exactly what it is, absolutely nothing.  If it were something you wanted to have enforced in a particular way, then we've responded adequately.  And if you are somehow think that people aren't going to abuse any system you put in front of them then just look at some of your own character ideas.  Why, I'm remembering SR3 characters who managed to get 8s in every physical stat and 5s or 6s in every mental stat.  I remember some SR4 characters being twinked out for the mass majority of hacker leetness.  And let's not also forget the fact that you've rallied behind my idea that a person who is a magical user, on a simple system analysis, is silly not to take cyberware.  You wanna +pay for yourself, or change words to match up with your psychological personage, then I would suggest giving away that nuyen and copying and pasting policies to a word document where you rewrite to your own pleasantness.  Anything else is an attempt to make a policy that seems, and self-admittedly so, is pointless.  You think of it as important, that I can see, but it is not an efficacious idea in the least.

@WhiteKnight:  Do I sound like a total idiot when I post?  I must, because otherwise you wouldn't inform me of useful tidbits like "opinions are not facts."  I realize that I might be naive, I'm just speaking from my experience.  If your experience is different, then you'd obviously be likely to have a different opinion.  But as you say, opinions are not facts.  I'm having a hard time understanding why you'd cite that tautology, considering it applies to both sides equally.

@NES:  I think your argument that rule without enforcement = nothing is deeply flawed.  You are correct that jaywalking is illegal but not enforced, and as such one could jaywalk at any time.  However, jaywalking is illegal for a reason - it's less safe than waiting for the signal.  While many people jaywalk, there are many people who do not.  Why?  Maybe some of them understand that jaywalking is less safe.  Maybe some people do it for fear of getting a ticket, since they don't know they won't.  Maybe some people do it just because it's the law, and they believe laws should be followed, especially lacking a good reason not to.  You can't just see the people jaywalking and use that to say the jaywalking ordnance is nothing.  A premise of your argument seems to be that unless a law is universally followed, it is ineffective.  But you have to look at the people who don't jaywalk and ask why.  It's certainly possible that at least some of the non jaywalkers behave that way because of the law, right?  Now, in some places the rule might be totally disregarded (i.e. New York City) but that doesn't mean that no jaywalking law anywhere can have an effect.  It really depends on whether people are fully aware of the non-enforcement, the purpose of the law, and whether people are willing to follow something just because it's the law and no other reason.

As such, a +pay policy that uses an "honor" system might be toothless, but it wouldn't necessarily be ineffective.  And I'm not talking about a system designed to drain down everyone's nuyen and force them to live on the edge.  I'm talking about small payments for various IC things that make the game seem more real and make extra-lifestyle minor purchases relevant to the player, and thus the PC.  There would not be much incentive to flaunt the system because the loss would be small.  And at the same time, it would not be a big deal if people did flaunt the system, since those who did would not exactly be netting a big advantage over those who didn't.  It's really just a small scale idea based on super basic economic principles that I've recently studied that may or may not have a positive impact on the game.  I really admire all the detractors, as they seem to know that the idea will fail miserably, utterly, and instantly.  I can't claim that kind of knowledge.  But I can say that nothing anyone has said has managed to convince me that my idea is really so horribly flawed.

For the record then:

I am not interested in negative reinforcement. I'm not about to implement any policy other than theme itself (remember that thread? Still waiting on my sample there...) to enforce roleplay. I would rather engage in positive reinforcement. People who RP in accordance to their lifestyle and the personality they've designated for their PC should be rewarded with karma/+awards/pie/whatever we're calling them these days.

No personal attacks, people. Calm it down.

Are we playing in the same setting? Say "non-profit organization" to me when talking about shadowrun and the first name to pop into my mind is "The Universal Brotherhood". Frankly, I just don't expect to see many (legitimate) non-profit groups running around, and the ones that are around will be severely overtaxed because we're talking about the Seattle of the dystopian future here. The barrens contain roughly a half million SINless, many of whom are perfectly willing to compete fiercely for free services.

Anyway, I'm in total agreement with you when you say that it's better to encourage people to honor the spirit of the rules than it is to code in a +pay system. I've felt that way from the start, really; where we differ is in the details. You're fine with assuming people have talked their way into basic luxuries while I feel that squatters in a plot should be presumed stinky until proven innocent.

Tear:  My argument was location specific as easily read.  You lived here before, so I figured you'd have an insight into the specifics.  Where I used to live in California, I knew of a teacher who jaywalked and got a 150 dollar fine.  Certainly people in that community had cause, and reason to not jaywalk.  In this community I don't see that same sort of 'fear' of being caught.  In fact, I see very often an simple disregard from young to old about lights and signals unless placed reasonably or during heavy traffic (and even still then people are constantly running back and forth).  Certainly, even still, there are people here who might fear that the police will nab them.  People who, by any previous argument we've had on the subject, would be deemably paranoid.  As they have no reason to fear authoritative punishment.  It simply doesn't get done here.  Location specific.

As for policies to make the paranoid not do something versus your average player, I'm not for either.  I think Noor's got it nailed on the nose.

As for economics, there are definitely economists out there who study the effects of scarcity on something and they study the effects of advertising.  And if you advertise something and make it purposefully scarce you can drive up sales.  You are, at that point, however, being specifically evil and taking particular advantage of not only the weak willed but the prevailing stupidity of our times.  I wouldn't want that in our game.  Just take a look at some of the things Ghandi wrote on, or talked on.  He was a fantastic economist who was, in specific, fighting against just such an economy of scarcity.

As for the personal attacks comments.  I don't think Tear ever believes I'm personally attacking anyone, cause she knows, hopefully, by now that I can't help but respond to an argument I find flaws in and is consistently argued.  So, I continue to argue.

Wasn't talking about you
But you all get my point. Treat one another with respect. Or I'll kick your ass. Or lock the thread, which is even worse.

I live in Los Angeles  County and I Jaywalk from time to time, especially when the nearest crosswalk is 3-4 LONG blocks away and the street is mostly empty. However, I don't do it OFTEN because where I am. (Burbank) And the fact that I really don't like the feeling of unsafely, and we have a police force that hangs out everywhere. Sometimes, however, the benefit outweighs the risk.

I visited Europe and found traffic laws to be radically different. In Europe, specifically The U.K., France, and The Netherlands, Jaywalking with a stroller filled with a baby is something people do, and in front of buses. There just doesn't seem to be the same emphasis on traffic and pedestrian laws there, because while HERE The pedestrian is supposed to have the right-of-way, there the pedestrian really DOES and they have much more public transportation, bikes, and walking than they do have cars, anyways. (At least that was my understanding of such a thing.)

It's still not legal to Jaywalk in many of those countries, but the law doesn't see the same reverence depending on what area of the country, or even the world one is in.

This will be good.

@Noor: I don't think +pay is negative reinforcement.  Negative reinforcement would be beating down people who fail to +pay.  I understand that you're not going to act on +pay, but it's still a good subject for pointless debate isn't it?

As for positive reinforcement...  I certainly like the idea of +awards for something like RPing a lifestyle correctly.  However, it seems rather like street people and squatters would hog those +awards.  If they RP being stinky, that's a check in their favor.  But I don't ever recall seeing anyone who RP'd not being stinky when they live in low or medium lifestyle...  Regardless, I'd generally have to agree that positive reinforcement is a good way to go for most RP things we want to promote.

@NES: I just can't see a +pay system instituting a scarcity mentality.  In order for stuff to be scarce, wouldn't it have to be fairly expensive?  A +pay system never pays for expensive stuff.  The reason why it exists is because the stuff it's used for is too small for the staff to waste their time on.  As I see it, +pay does not make small items scarce, it just makes them part of a cost/benefit analysis that doesn't exist in the system's absence.  I'm talking about small cost vs. no cost.  I think small cost actually provides benefits, and since it's small there isn't much detriment.  It isn't a zero sum game - by imposing small costs on small items, you get a benefit that's more valuable than that cost.  It is more valuable to stimulate RP and put players more squarely in their characters' situations than it is for the players to hang onto small amounts of cash.  The argument does reference scarcity somewhat, but as the idea is for a small scale system, the only scarcity mentality would be minor.  And here, I can predict you saying that a little bit of evil is still evil and shouldn't be allowed, but get over yourself!  It's an imaginary game with fake money.  Some tiny amount of economic tribulations might enhance the player experience.  If anyone, by any kind of bizarre turn of events, starves because of a +pay system, it's no big deal because they're not real people and we're trying to simulate a dystopian world that's absolutely bursting with evil.

By that argument of course, we should poll old players to find out who the most awful, corrupt, crappy staffers were in the past and put them in charge    Can't have a dystopian game with benevolent gods, now can we? 

Actually scarcity applies to anything across any level of cost.

For instance, a bottle of water costs money.  It is not free, but costs very little.  So, most people are willing to buy bottled water instead of drinking from a tap or worse from a lake.  The bottling companies have made up a scarce 'clean water' situation for people.  Where all through out the USA people drink from natural springs, lakes, rivers, etc and even stand in line a few hundred people long to get water from a tree that's fallen over and brings water to the side of the rode.  The water isn't 'purified by chemicals' but it is certainly good for you, and its free.  We don't seek those out because of a marketing scheme to make us believe that clean water is something scarce, provided only by some companies, and because of its low cost there is no minuses to it to you.  The value of the chemically pure water is higher than that of your mythologically unsafe lake water.  Most lake water is perfectly fine for you.  It does take a little bit to get used to it, because of the difference in chemicals versus other things, but once you are your body agrees with it usually better than the chemicals.

This happens throughout all things that actually cost very little.  To be made into something 'scarce' it does not mean that it has to cost a lot.  It just has to be perceived as something impossible to get without buying into it, or so rare to get that you'd rather just spend the money.  That's scarcity economics.  You are attempting to apply a virtual scarcity on a game where fun is already free and so is style.  You want to have people charge themselves (look up the panopticon for why that's particularly messed up) in order that they perceive a greater appreciation toward the style they had access to previously.  And through this charging mechanism you will create a social desire to have this 'new' style which isn't free, instead of the old style which was free, because of an advertised betterment of said 'new' style.

To me, it seems completely ridiculous.  Charge for something I can do for free, and probably better for free.  No punishment, no benefits, just a mental psychological twisting that's going to happen to people.  Again, look up the panopticon, that particular prison has a lot of the same mentality as your proposition. 

I see what you're saying, but there's no charging here!  The money is imaginary, and the things it buys are imaginary.  And the idea is not to create demand for something that was previously free.  The idea is to add value to something that was previously worthless.  It's two sides of the same coin - are you charging for free stuff, or giving value to something that's worthless?  You're looking at my idea as creating artificial scarcity, I'm looking at it as adding value.

For instance, if I charge for clean water but there's clean water everywhere for free already, I'm creating scarcity.  But what if there isn't clean, safe water until I make it?  Then, I can charge for the value I've added by cleaning the water with no moral qualms.  Which one +pay is doing depends on whether people already take advantage of style and use it to the fullest, or whether they consider it to be pointless.  It would be a lot easier if one or the other was true, but clearly it's not.

Anyway, I'm not sure if +pay could actually help improve RP.  But in light of what Noor said, I admit that positive incentives would probably be more effective.  +pay might turn enough people away from fashion that any positive effect it had would be negated.  Positive reinforcement, on the other hand, encourages everyone to do a good job without any risk of people rebelling and becoming slobs.