Other than deregistration, the other problems can be solved with pledges. However, agencies + pledges is an even messier solution than orgs as they are now.
Gaelan > On Sep 2, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 09/02/17 17:37, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> I think we could upgrade Agencies to that they can hold Shinies themselves. >> With that plus proper Powers, they could operate extremely similarly to how >> I believe Organizations are intended to. (And even WITHOUT that, they still >> can, although with a bit less safety because its not as stalwart as "brutha >> choo cant do it, its da LAW" and more like "you get a card if you break this >> rule we made...". Just make an abstract wallet of shinies as a subsection of >> some player's existing wallet) > > In general I'm supportive of making some combo of agencies and organizations, > but there's some problems with this proposed method. Keeping shinies in a > single player's possession defeats all the merits of an escrow scheme: they > can spend them without any issue (unless we add punishments, which I think is > the wrong direction), they can change the agency without others' input (orgs > typcially require member approval), and if they deregister the shinies are > gone. The whole point of using an org as a middleman is that, if the org is > structured correctly, there's no way to cheat people out of the assets it > holds. > >> >> We can make entire *nomics* within Agencies already lol. They're incredibly >> powerful. With more more access to more gamestate, they can become really >> really useful tools imo. I really like Agencies lol. I think they're amazing. >> >> On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk >> <mailto:ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>> wrote: >> On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 23:45 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> > I don’t support this. I see little harm in keeping an interesting >> > game mechanic in the ruleset, especially if we make it clear that it >> > is not necessary for beginners to understand. >> >> I still like the concept behind Organizations, but there's a lot of >> evidence that the execution is wrong. As such, for them to be used, >> it's likely that we'll need a new set of Organization rules that change >> many of the details that don't work. >> >> It may well be easier to clean the slate and start over than it would >> be to continuously morph the current Organization rules into a new set. >> >> -- >> ais523 >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
