On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 23:44 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Curious about how you intend to pull off that win. I tried to avoid > trivial abuse (create an agency with “do X as long as agora has less > that 1000 shines”) by having the “defined entirely by the rules” > clause; does Agora actually owe you enough shinies to make itself > bankrupt, or are you going to try and abuse the rule?
I'm assuming that the rule you've written does exactly what it's intended to do (i.e. the new rule's being treated as a purely economic rule, not as something to scam in a wording sense). It's more just that infinite Shiny farming scams are common enough as it is (e.g. repeatedly claiming for the same report; I know there was an attempt to fix that one), but there's been no real reason to try to cash them in. Being able to get a win for one would make them much more valuable, and I'd be very surprised if none were left in the ruleset. Given the cleanup procedure in the proposal, such a scam would be even more damaging, as it would allow a single player (who had an infinite Shiny farming scam) to drain not just Agora's entire Shiny supply, but everyone else's too (and gaining a large number of wins as a side effect). Win scams interfering with economies has been a problem in the past. This would almost be the opposite, an economic scam interfering with win tracking. It's normally bad form to win more than once off the same scam (or twice if the rules attempt to enforce only one win from a cause; the first scam is the "regular" scam, the second againnst the cleanup), but gaining control of the entire Shiny supply might well be worth it. (The next issue, of course, is that other people would try to repeat your scam in order to get Shinies back into their own hands, meaning we'd end up with a huge number of wins everywhere which needed to be permanently tracked. A situation where making a proposal requires winning the game as a side effect is really not ideal.) -- ais523
