Ok I've been through this a few times - specifically mentioning technical flaws only (not game-balance)...
On 5/21/2020 1:08 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > Cards are a type of asset with a corresponding Product. Products are > also assets. The types of Cards and their corresponding Products are: We haven't had any cases about fungibility lately but you probably want to say "currency" instead of "asset". > If a player has at least 20 more Victory Points than any other player, e > CAN win by announcement. When a player wins this way, destroy all Cards > and their corresponding products. Then, for each non-zombie player, > grant em 1 card of each type. The "destroy" and "grant" actions read like commands to someone unspecified, instead of the typical passive "all cards are destroyed". Not sure this is broken but you might want to avoid a cfj on this? (can't remember a situation where commands to nobody were used like this). > If a proposal was created in the last week and has not been added to the > proposal pool, any player CAN add it to the Proposal Pool by paying one > Pendant. When a player who is not the author or a co-author of a > proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool by this method, e is added to the > list of co-authors. This makes proposals "untracked but existing" before they go in the pool (and no way way for a promotor to "remove" it, it would stay there forever if it wasn't added to the pool). And importantly, the author can't retract it until it's in the pool, so e literally needs to pay to retract it. I can see confusion where someone submits three drafts with the same name, can't retract them, and then pays to add one to the pool (by name) and we all have to say "which one?" I'll leave it up to Aris whether this is a true bug? (The language can be tweaked to add those features, especially retraction, it seems easiest to leave the "creation adds it to the pool" as-is and just put a "pend" switch back in, it's literally a 1-2 line addition to current). > A player can Buy Strength by paying 1 Extra Vote and specifing a current spelling: specifying > Agoran decision on which e is a voter. For each time a player has Bought > Strength on a decision, eir voting strength is 1 greater on that > decision. A player CANNOT Buy Strength for the same decision more than 3 > times. If this is at the end of the Voting Strength rule (2422), the "1 greater" would override the "maximum of 15" because it's later in the rule (if the clause was in a separate power-2 rule then it wouldn't). A max of 18 instead of 15 isn't a big deal, just pointing that out. > Once a week the Treasuror CAN and SHOULD initiate an auction. The > auction has the following lots: [will read again after the auction section is fixed] > The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as defined > in > rule 955, among all proposals assessed in the last 7 days CAN once earn > one Legislative Card. If there is a tie, all authors of the tied > proposals may do so once each. Needs a "by announcement"? > [This introduces 4 (or more!) Legislative Cards per month. My math says that > this, along with the 6 that can be created by officers should be enough. But > time will tell for sure.] > > Create a new Power=1 rule titled "Card Administration" with the following > text: > > Justice Cards are associated with the Ministry of Justice. Legislative > Cards are associated with the Ministry of Legislation. Voting Cards are > associated with the ministry of Participation. > > Officers CAN, once per month and by announcement, grant another player a Should be "An officer CAN..." not "Officers CAN"?
