I would be more than happy to volunteer to track information for either of the two land reform proposals up for discussion. They both look grand.
Some specific feedback on this one: On Nov 14, 2017, at 12:17 AM, Reuben Staley <[email protected]> wrote: > Re-enact rule 1993/1 (Power=2) "The Land of Arcadia" with the text: > > Arcadia is a land entirely defined by the Arcadian Map (the Map). > The Map is a record kept by the Office of the Cartographor. > > The Map divides Arcadia into a finite, discrete number of Units of > Land, or simply Land. Each Unit of Land is an indestructible asset > specified by a pair of integers known as its Latitude and > Longitude. > > Every unique pair of integers within the limits defined in the > Rules for Latitude and Longitude signifies an existent Unit of > Land. No other Units of Land exist. Units of Land SHALL only be > created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and > Longitude defined in the Rules. > > All values for Latitude and Longitude MUST lie between -9 and +9, > inclusive. You may want to limit this to the integers, lest we argue over the ownership of the land at Φ degrees north by τ degrees west, and the myriad other transcendental land units. With integers, this is the size of a goban. Given the rest of your mechanics, I suspect this may be intentional. > Land belonging to Agora is called Public Land. Land belonging to > a contract is called Communal Land. Land belonging to any other > entity is called Private Land. Together, Communal Land and Private > Land are called Proprietary Land. > > Changes in Land ownership are secured, unless: > > 1. The Land Unit is Public, and the transfer is specifically > permitted by the rules; > > 2. The Land Unit is Communal, and the transfer is specifically > permitted by the Contract that owns it; > > 3. The Land Unit is Private, and the entity that owns it announces > the transfer. This is a bit of an odd phrasing. I might go for Changes in Land ownership are secured. Land can be as follows: (same list, with the final item set off by an “or”.) > Re-enact rule 1995/0 (Power=2) "Land Types" with the text: > > Each Unit of Land SHALL have a single Land Type. Changes to Land > Type are secured. > > The phrase "Units of X", where X is a Land Type defined by the > Rules, is considered a synonym for "Units of Land that have Land > Type (or Subtype) X" > > When existent Land has not had its Type changed as explicitly > permitted by the Rules, or has a Type that is not currently > defined by the Rules, it is considered to have the Land Type of > Aether. Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, Units of Aether > CANNOT be transferred from Agora, or owned by any entity other > than Agora. If Private or Public Land becomes Aether, the > Cartographor SHALL transfer it to Agora in a timely fashion. Did you mean to permit contracts to own Aether, here? > Re-enact rule 2004/3 (Power=1) "Land Auctions" with the text: > > Every Agoran Week, if the number of units of Private Land is less > than one half the total number of units of Land, an auction SHALL > be initiated. For this auction, the announcer is the Cartographor, > the auctioneer is the Cartographor, the lots are chosen as such: > > 1. if there exist at least 3 Units of non-Aether Land in the > possession of Agora: any 3 such Units of Land, to be chosen by > the Cartographor; > > 2. if there exist fewer than 3 Units of non-Aether Land in the > possession of Agora: all such Units; > > and the minimum bid is 1 shiny. I think this is intended to cause one lot per three units owned by Agora, with a final lot for the remaining one or two units, with the total number of units auctioned sufficient to put half the units of land in private hands, correct? I’m not confident in this phrasing, if so. > Re-enact rule 2022/5 (Power=1), renaming it "Land Transfiguration" with > the text: > > On the fifteenth of each Agoran Month, the Cartographor SHALL > perform the following actions in sequence, and report these > changes in a timely fashion: Add a “within a timely fashion” here or a late attempt may fail, and the Cartographer cannot avoid a card. > 1. Every Land Unit, excluding (0, 0) that is not directly > connected to a unit of Aether, or is not connected by its own > type to a unit of Aether, shall be transformed to Aether. > > 2. Any entities whose locations are on land units so transformed > shall have their locations set to 0,0. > > 3. If any land unit so transformed is not property of Agora, it > becomes property of Agora. Go capture rules, in other words, but on a fixed clock. Interesting. > If one or more units of land that make up a jafit ever have their > ownership or Land Type changed, then: > > 1. If the change would cause the constituent Land Units to cease > to be connected, then the jafit is destroyed; > > 2. otherwise, the plot is resized to exclude the Land Unit in > question. > > [ This needs to be worded better. Suggest fixes please. Thanks in > advance. ] I’m actually pretty okay with this phrasing. “Resized” is a loose verb, but a version of this that directly says that the LU in question is removed from the plot would clean that up. > Create a new rule (Power=2) "Zmetah" with the text: > > [ Okay, I'm just gonna call everything by Sajem Tan names because why > not. This one means "building" btw. ] > > Zmetah (pronounced /zmetɑ/, singular "zmet") are liquid assets > tracked by the Cartographor. In order for a zmet to exist, it MUST > be built on a jafit. Only one zmet is allowed per jafit. > > A player CAN create a zmet by announcement by paying specifying > which jafit e wants to build it on, specifying which type of zmet > e intends to build, and paying the corresponding build cost. > > If a player owns a zmet, e CAN, by announcement, use any powers > the zmet affords to em. > > If a player owns any zmetah with upkeep costs, e SHALL pay them > before the first day of the next Agoran month. Failing to do this > destroys the zmet. In the second to last week of the Agoran Month, > the Cartographor SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to all > those who have not paid upkeep fees on any of eir zmetah. If we repeal shinies, should we drop upkeep outright, or require an AP upkeep, or something else? Obviously, this portion is the _most_ in need of a rework. I’d be partial to keeping shinies, but removing the fixed supply and repealing the floating costs in favour of this, with periodic price adjustments somewhere if shinies cease to be a limiting factor, or if shinies become an inordinate obstacle. Given the numbers involved, I suspect a steady but small stipend per week would work - 2-3 sh. would allow someone to build one Zmet per month, but they’re liquid enough that players could still pool assets (through contracts eg.) if they wanted. (Usual skepticisim about Agorans’ willingness to commit to substantial joint projects here.) > Create a new rule (Power=2) "Zmet Types" with the text: > > The following Zmet types are defined, along with all relevant > statistics: > > 1. Estate > - Build Cost: 10sh. > - Upkeep Cost: 10sh. > - Powers: The owner of an estate CAN choose to raise eir > voting power by one on up to X proposals, where X is the Nth > triangular number, where N is the amount of Land Units the > jafit which the estate is built on has. > > [ I hope that's clear so that someone can fix it lol. But seriously this > sucks. ] This is clever, but doesn’t fix the basic problem with voting strength rewards, which is that they’re only generally useful for scam proposals. > 2. Quarry > - Build Cost: 5sh. > - Upkeep Cost: 5sh. > - Powers: > > [ Depending on what economic reform proposal passes, Quarries will > either create shinies in the owner's possession, or it will do > something else related to shinies. Grafting on G.’s three-resource system here might work. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
