> [...] to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't want and don't know how to deal with [...] I think it's valuable to allow orgs to not want to take part in the Shiny system if they don't want to.
> Why play a game where I may lose some shinies and not gain a stamp when I could just save my shinies to farm more stamps? Because the stamps rule proposal says 15 *different* stamps, so someone angling for this victory has to get some stamps from sources they can't control. If the Agora community as a whole doesn't want to encourage a player sitting on three organizations (the number I think is reasonable) farming stamps, the community as a whole doesn't have to accept that player's stamps. Actually, I think I would support an addition to the rule which increases the destroy value of a stamp if a stamp of that type had not been created recently, giving stamps a hold value as well. 天火狐 On 24 May 2017 at 15:51, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On a more serious note, the proposal says that the organization needs to > pay > > an administrative fee, but the latest version of the Assets proposal > states > > that an organization can decide for themselves if they want to accept an > > asset. While I think the budget system is clunky, I would rather a player > > pay a one-time administration fee to create an Organization, and have a > > restriction on how many organizations a player is allowed to be in > (which is > > my understanding a feature of the budget system) than force all > > Organizations to have a Shiny balance. > I'm happy to remove that section, or to grant shinies an exception. I > just added it to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't > want and don't know how to deal with, which came up in a discussion. > > -Aris >
