That wasn't really what I meant. Winning is it's own incentive, along with
Champion and maybe the chance of getting Speaker. This is more like an
extra reward. It's just a small bonus that acknowledges the victory.
The basic idea for the new system is driven by things I've noticed in video
games.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> This gag is already old, but the point is that I could go on. Separate
> auctions encourage more competitive play. Imagine if these were all lots in
> the same auction. Every bid would be a shot in the dark. You couldn't
> strategize and attempt to get
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
>
> > I withdraw my and Quazie's (acting on eir behalf) support for the
> > destruction of "Hi" - let's just have the vote on that proposal, and
> > possibly destroy the contract later, if the proposal fails.
>
> I
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
> G. wrote:
>
> > Sigh. I deputize for the REFEREE to resolve the finger-pointing as
> > indicated
> > below.
>
> Leaving this out of the ADoP history, as you already were Referee
> (unless I missed something else).
The subsequent conversation was tha
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
Also, has anyone noticed the extra 'not' in Gaelan's signature? I
suspect it's intentional sneakiness.
I'd use Hanlon's razor here, it's the kind of logic many people mess up and
it seems a bit too indisc
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
Also, has anyone noticed the extra 'not' in Gaelan's signature? I
suspect it's intentional sneakiness.
I'd use Hanlon's razor here, it's the kind of logic many people mess up
and it seems a bit too indiscriminately destructive to be sneakiness.
Gree
G. wrote:
Sigh. I deputize for the REFEREE to resolve the finger-pointing as indicated
below.
Leaving this out of the ADoP history, as you already were Referee
(unless I missed something else).
G. wrote:
GUESS WHAT: It's worse than that. There *is* no Referee's weekly report!
There's no place I can find that puts together "referee" and "Report".
How long has that been the case, so I can remove relevant bits from the
ADoP database?
ATMunn wrote:
Oh man, it's been so long since I've been ADoP so I forget if I can do
this but if I can:
I initiate an election for Referee, and become a candidate in that
election.
I'm catching up on e-mail, should be done within the hour.
As I understand it, this is ineffective, as you do
Here's my argument on why separate land auctions are better:
Imagine that land unit 1 has a Rank 4 facility on it, but land unit 2
has nothing. More people will bid on land unit 1. This is completely
justified since land unit 1 is definitely more valuable than land unit
2. So someone might get
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
Amend Rule 2557, "Removing Blots", by changing the first paragraph to read
"A player CAN, by announcement, destroy N incense in eir possession to
expunge N of eir blots. When e does so, e is ENCOURAGED to publicly
and grandiloquently apologize to the
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
I withdraw my and Quazie's (acting on eir behalf) support for the
destruction of "Hi" - let's just have the vote on that proposal, and
possibly destroy the contract later, if the proposal fails.
It seems possible to read the combination of rule 2519 and rule
On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 21:13 -0400, ATMunn wrote:
> So winning the game is not as valuable as winning an auction?
There are two types of Agorans: those who aim to gain
economic/political power so that it lets them eventually win the game,
and those who aim to win so as to gain economic/political po
So winning the game is not as valuable as winning an auction?
On 4/12/2018 8:46 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Title: Crystals
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s):
[I'm changing it so that players CAN upgrade facilities they don't own,
let me know if that's a problem.]
Amend Rule 2562, Fa
Haven't read any of the other posts yet, but I would say that I would
probably prefer it to be a single auction.
On 4/12/2018 4:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction?
That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how
Title: Blot Expansion
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s):
Amend Rule 2483, "Economics", by: {
Appending "10. incense", as a new list item after "9. fabric"; and
Changing "Stones, apples, and corn are considered unrefinable currencies;"
to read "Stones, apples, corn, and incense a
Title: Crystals
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s):
[I'm changing it so that players CAN upgrade facilities they don't own,
let me know if that's a problem.]
Amend Rule 2562, Facility Ranks, to read as follows:
Rank is a secured facility switch tracked by the Cartographor defaultin
Maybe some large amount of fabric could be turned into a ribbon?
Probably a bad idea, but it's an idea.
On 4/11/2018 11:41 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Currently, fabric is only used in some upper-level rank-up payments. I
think it is the least useful of the nine economic assets right now. If
some
As far as I can tell, the office of Treasuror is currently undefined.
It was formerly defined by Rule 2483, but that was amended by PAoaM to
mention the office without defining it.
-Aris
I was to choose 5 land units and set them as separate lots in the same
auction. Even if two of the auctions had valid lots, both of them fail
to have the necessary amount of lots for the situation. Therefore, by my
interpretation, both auctions are invalid.
On 4/12/2018 3:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wr
Do you suppose you started one (the first accurate one?) or do you think the
whole
thing failed? Not sure myself...
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Because it's clear that I have not used the correct Agoran Term, I amend my
> statement:
>
> This is simply a case of Trigon writing
Because it's clear that I have not used the correct Agoran Term, I amend
my statement:
This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't
actually mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of
the proposal. I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the p
You CANNOT do that. The rule doesn't allow you to. So you failed to
initiate five. You said you did in the announcement, but you didn't.
Maybe you initiated one (the first accurate one, AUCTION 2), or maybe
the collection was so ambiguous it all failed.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wro
This is simply a case of Trigon writing down a thing that e didn't
actually mean and everyone else not realizing until after the passing of
the proposal. I wanted there to be five auctions, but clearly the passed
text does not reflect my intent. I, working under the assumption that
the rules ca
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > I terminate the ongoing land auction
>
> I think this intent FAILS as there are in fact 5 going on right now.
By R2004 you only CAN initiate 1 each week. At least that's my reading of
"each Agoran week... the Cartographer CAN and SHALL initiate an
Reading R2004, it looks like it was *supposed* to be a single auction?
That's definitely not how the announcement below reads, and not how
people have been bidding, so I don't know what actually happened.
(R2004 only allows 1 auction to be started each week).
I'm also looking for anything that
> I terminate the ongoing land auction
I think this intent FAILS as there are in fact 5 going on right now.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 14:33 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement
> that "An Auction also CANN
Oops, you're right. You know, it seems pretty likely that those ones
just never began in the first place.
-Aris
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just
> terminated I think? (Auctions 1,3,4).
>
> On Thu, 12 Ap
These are independent auctions so only the incorrect ones were just
terminated I think? (Auctions 1,3,4).
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I agree with G.'s interpretation. I believe that Rule 2549's statement
> that "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is
> abl
My interpretation:
You describe a particular lot as a "white land unit at ". You do not have
a "white land unit at " to transfer, so anyone can terminate the auction.
If no one terminates it, I'm not sure whether you can satisfy your obligation
to transfer by transferring a black land u
I'd say that these data are less relevant than the coordinates of the land
units, so it would not invalidate it. But that may just be me but wanting
to do work to fix it.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018, 11:24 Corona wrote:
> Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:
>
> AUCTION 1: The lot is t
Wait, I just looked it up (in your own report) and:
AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +2) <-- actually black
AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, +3)
AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+2, 0) <-- actually black
AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at
On the flip side, we need a currency to remove Blots. I'm hesitant to
make it fabric because I think it should be a "basic" (unrefined, provided
by payday). I might be convinced otherwise though.
On your longer post, I agree - I don't think we're too far off balance and
can get there with mino
Compromise: proposal offers a minor bribe of N of the contract's assets to
the first N voters FOR the proposal - ends up being a partway penalty.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Corona wrote:
> Well, you're right, the contract was harmless, and losing all the assets
> would be crippling, but on the other
I'll pay to pend it if you submit it.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> I couldn't myself write such a proposal, being without assets.
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think e should get it all back. It was harmless.
> >
> > If there isn't enough
I couldn't myself write such a proposal, being without assets.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I think e should get it all back. It was harmless.
>
> If there isn't enough consensus for a w/o objection modification,
> maybe a proposal (power 2.1 does it right?).
>
> I
What about amending it in such a way that everyone gets a coin and VJ Rada
gets the rest back? I wouldn't object to that.
On Thursday, April 12, 2018, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit much.
> That m
It's simple to win using zombiception. Step 1 get a zombie. Step 2
don't post for 60 days. Step 3 on behalf of your zombie, bid high on
yourself, without flipping your own master switch.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Nothing involving giving a-d messages effect is legiti
Nothing involving giving a-d messages effect is legitimate (TBH, not sure
whether that would work either).
-Aris
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:20 AM Ned Strange
wrote:
> It wasn't really a scam it was going to be used for a perfectly
> legitimate application of zombiception!
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 201
It wasn't really a scam it was going to be used for a perfectly
legitimate application of zombiception!
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit much.
> That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terri
Sigh. I tend to agree with you, actually. All of your assets is a bit much.
That might be hard to recover from. However, it isn't terribly equitable
for you to get off free after attempting a scam, even one that we've sort
of encouraged with the Boo Lien system. Also, giving all of your assets to
o
I really do think that me losing all of my assets over this is inequitable.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM, Ned Strange wrote:
> That is, I object for myself and PSS to Aris's intent
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ned Strange wrote:
>> I object both for myself and PSS.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 1
Too late, but this proposal should also have excised the last
paragraph of "Referee Accountability"
On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I pend this proposal by expending a paper.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:44 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>> I submit the following
43 matches
Mail list logo
