On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 04:35:39PM -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I don't mind adding switches, but this is badly out of date:
I am working from the most recently published ruleset, which
incorporates proposals up to 4866. I am aware that there are proposals
the effects of which have not been included in that ruleset.
This is, after all, a *proto*-proposal.
> In fact, the only places that switches existed when I finished
> with initial deletions was with Fora and Turning, and those were
> easy to re-word without switches... which is why I deleted the
> switch rule after all the other cuts. So if you put switches
> back in, they're only needed in fora and turning.
There are other places where switches would be useful, but considering
statements such as
> I would oppose anything reintroducing activity levels, FWIW.
I don't wish to include all the applications (activity, voting,
property, Flip That Switch! with large cash prizes) at once.
> People wanted to start with a simple ruleset, why was it worth
> the bother if all the bells and whistles are slapped right back
> in? On activity levels, it became clear with cards that it was
> too much of a "can't touch me" thing for those who wanted to
> actually play some kind of game with this mess of rules.
It's not clear to me. It's definitely not how I used inactivity (with
perhaps one exception, which I would include as a part of playing the
game), as I largely used it to take time off when RL demanded too much
attention for me to play the game (but not so much that I could never
return).
> I'd
> only support something like frozen (if you go on hold, all you
> possessions go away, you're not allowed to play, etc.) and at
> that point not much point in being registered.
Hrm. I dere- hey, you can't trick me that easily.
I wouldn't propose that going on hold makes you lose all your property,
but I agree that going on hold should curtail what actions you can
perform. The "not allowed to play" would be dangerous, since that
would prevent you from coming off hold.
As long as the economic faction of Agora is strong enough to force
everyone to play the economic game, it is necessary for Agora to have
periodic resets and for players to have the ability to go on hold. I
realize that most features of an Agoran economy don't currently exist
(switches may be useful in changing that), but it seems to happen every
few years or so.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
I understand this. That frightens me.
-- Murphy, in agora-discussion
