On 6/10/2020 12:06 PM, nch via agora-discussion 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'm confused what bug we're talking about now.m I thought it was about Jason's "exploit" was for consolidated patches in general, not Sets. (And that "bug" sounded to me like "this is technically possible sure, but no one would go to those lengths for that minor profit"). -G.
