On 6/10/2020 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > 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 wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:44 AM Kerim Aydin 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").
Sorry I meant PSS, not Jason.
