On 5/8/2022 11:13 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 2022-05-08 at 11:06 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> I withdraw my previous proposal, Endgame. >> >> I submit the following proposal, Endgame, AI-1, and pay a pendant to pend it: >> >> ------- >> >> Create the following power=1 rule, titled Buyout: >> >> Any player who has not taken over the economy in the last 30 >> days CAN pay a fee of N Winsomes to create 500 times N coins >> in eir possession, provided e does so unconditionally and >> without disclaimers, acting as emself, in a message body >> containing no other actions or other action attempts, and explicitly >> specifies N in the message (i.e. without indirect references such >> as "all"). >> >> One week after this rule first takes effect, the winds die down. >> >> Immediately after Rule 2658 (The Winds Die Down) is repealed, >> this rule is repealed. >> >> --------- > > I'm suddenly really curious about what scam this is trying to prevent. >
So, the reason this is "endgame" and not just "trade-in" is of course that if people start to trade in and there's fewer winsomes in the game, last-minute wins are quite possible. This is obviously a "move as close to the deadline as possible" sort of game (if anyone actually tries to win that way), which are never great in Agora, but any hard end to Sets would be against a some kind of hard deadline - so I was just trying to make it as dynamic as possible. To that end IMO: - Requiring specification of N improves instead of allowing "all" etc. adds an element of risk to getting it wrong. - Conditionals: "If I have enough Winsomes I take over the economy, otherwise I trade in" greatly reduces the risk of doing stuff last-minute, making the exercise pretty boring. - Disclaimers: You can fake someone out by saying "I trade in 10" if you've only got 9. But to avoid No Faking, you'd need to include a disclaimer. This limits that tactic and makes it ILLEGAL to do that kind of thing. - No other actions in the message: You could get around the "explicit specification of N" by saying "I pay 20, I pay 19, I pay 18..." and having only the one corresponding with "all" succeed. - acting as emself: Unwinding arrangements like the OP is less interesting if a side-contract is written so one person does it at the same time on behalf of all the involved parties. Will this make an interesting endgame? Dunno. But once I started writing out the principle of just "all moves must be basic unconditional moves" there were lots of loopholes to patch - and I'm sure I didn't get them all... -G.
