Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Victory auctions

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 10, 2020, at 15:07, nch via agora-discussion 
> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 

I don’t see that necessarily as a scam or exploit; I think it’s just an 
interesting consequence of rules we’re enacting.