On 6/10/20 1:23 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-06-10 09:51, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/10/20 10:46 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via >> agora-discussion wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:44 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business >>> <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >>>> [Submitting because Sets could be resolved at any time and I want to beat >>>> that clock. If there are bugs I will try to withdraw/resubmit in time]. >>> This actually raises an interesting question: wouldn't it be >>> economically strategic to allow a bugged proposal to pass rather not >>> withdraw and submit if one knows that it won't cause serious problems >>> because then a certified patch could be used? >>> >> Now we're speculating about abusing a loophole to a >> currently-up-for-vote "patch" for an economy that hasn't even been >> assessed yet. > This is one of the reasons Agora is so great. We regularly debate things > that are excessively abstract and might never have relevance to the > actual gamestate, but are interesting to look at from a balancing > perspective. > > -- > Trigon
I actually meant that out of mild frustration. Sets hasn't started and we're about to pass a gameplay tweak meant to 'fix' something that's supposedly wrong with it, and it's frustrating to see that the first thing anyone plans to do with that tweak is exploit it. I know scams and exploits and rule lawyering are part of Agora, but sometimes I just want to play the games we design for a bit first.
