On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 6:28 AM Goren Barak via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Title: Multiple Dreams
> Author: Goren Barak
> Adoption Index: 1
> Coathors:
>
Co-authors (spelling), and also, rude not to include Murphy, snail, and I.
(snail had/remembered the idea, Murphy had specific notes, and I have
provided the following feedback! :P no worries tho just add us :D )
{
> Rewrite Rule 2675 (Dream of Wandering) as such:
>
The arcane incantation is "
Amend Rule 2675 (Dream of Wandering) to read in full:
{
[new text]
}
"
Although, I think it would be more responsible/acceptable to specify
exactly the text you want to replace
"Amend blah by replacing {
[oldtext]
} with {
[newtext]
}"
Dream is a secured active player switch, tracked by the Dream Keeper in
> eir weekly report, with possible values any set of Dreams, each Dream
> having a unique value, or an empty pair of dreams, defaulting to an
> empty pair of dreams. An "X Dreamer" is a player with one of eir Dreams
> set to X.
>
I'm not sure, but the definition of set implies uniqueness on its own. The
part I'm not sure of is whether Agora agrees.
I also think "or an empty set, defaulting to an empty set" would be more
succinct, but I don't think that's strictly required to be changed for this
proposal to pass.
Also "An "X Dreamer" is a player with eir Dream containing X."
> An active player CAN "envision" a set of dreams, specifying any valid
> value for eir Dreams, by announcement. When the rules state that the
> wandering occurs, every active player's Dream is set to the values e
> most recently envisioned. If a player did not envision a dream since the
> last wandering, it is not flipped.
>
"specifying a set of up to two Dreams." I think would be better: it's
pretty well known that it's potentially scammable, if we want to leave the
scam "open" we should at least make it inaccessible, although everyone WILL
be looking for a way to exploit it, it's not a big deal I don't think since
it's not exploitable right now.
(If anyone puts up a fight to this I strongly suggest that you provide new
wording to accommodate your vision.)
"every active player's Dream is set to the value e most recently
envisioned" a Dream can only contain a single value, and that single value
is a set of values.
Not sure of the repercussion of the wording you have, and I think others
would point out the same regardless...
Also... wrt shenanigans (setting my dream to my dream)... what is the
difference between Dream and Dreams? maybe a bug, maybe not; if you have
any idea how to fix it it would be welcome, but I don't think anyone is
worried about its existence currently.
Finally... I know I SAID to remove Wandering, but it's referenced in
Revolution, so we either change revolution or let it be. I think letting it
be is probably fine anyway.
--
4ˢᵗ
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
