The auction system was a nice idea. What happened to that? =)
~ Roujo
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Aaron Goldfein <aarongoldf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 13:17, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > I can only conclude that the players as a whole are no longer playing a
>> > game, but rather a "let's make up impossible-to-comply-with rules to see
>> > what happens" situation.
>>
>> I thought that was the explicit purpose of the Fearmongor, the source of
>> much recent random dumbness (broken pope, Vladivostok, and others) as well
>> as some small amount of useful creativity. Pope in particular really
>> annoyed
>> me this way - why keep in something knowingly so broken? Still. I, for
>> one,
>> entered into the spirit of Fearmongor and voted for a few random and
>> slightly-harmful things as I'm guessing did others; the really bad ones
>> failed.
>> If annoyance is outpacing creativity here , time to repeal fearmongor
>> before
>> deciding the players as a whole are currently lacking.
>>
>> > There's a deeper problem, here. The rules so often use ILLEGAL, etc, to
>> > mean "you can do this but you'll be punished if you do". That's not what
>> > it means at all; in most games, there's a sort-of meta-agreement not to
>> > cheat, and players will just refuse to play with people who repeatedly
>> > break the rules. That doesn't seem to happen here, at all; rulebreakers
>> > are just sanctioned and play goes on as normal. (This makes perfect
>> > sense for accidental rules breaches; it makes sense for a game to have a
>> > way to recover from those. But deliberate cheating?) Too often, people
>> > do something of borderline legality, and then people have a debate
>> > afterwards about whether it was legal. In any other game, someone doing
>> > so would generally ask for permission in advance; in Agora, they just do
>> > it and argue for ages about if it were legal anyway.
>>
>> This precise philosophical question ("Is breaking the rules part of play
>> or part of metaplay") is one of those fundamental self-referential nomic
>> questions, since deciding what's legal in the game is explicitly part of
>> the game. It's not a nomic otherwise IMO - anyone asking for a metagame
>> agreement ("can't we just decide that X make sense") is accused of "not
>> playing nomic". In our current interpretation of this philosophy, it's
>> why
>> we split off IMPOSSIBLE from ILLEGAL, and right now DISCHARGE is akin to
>> "asking Agora permission." I don't doubt that any Vladivostok case would
>> be discharged.
>>
>> > Hopefully, Agora'll still be intact next month when the
>> > deregistration timer runs out.
>>
>> My bigger worry is unwillingness-to-hold-officership (or at least, that
>> most of those that do are having semi-annual snits right now - I'm
>> hoping to make some time to assume at the very least IADoP and Herald
>> on the next few days but can't promise that).
>>
>> -G.
>
> I would like to see massive incentives given for holding office. Perhaps
> one's voting limit is the interest index of the postulated offices e holds?
>
