It would’ve been pretty easy to win last dynasty with a coordinated team
(wealth was pretty unambiguous from the start in the form of Clues:
Emperor-given info on a series of data a la Cluedo; wealth could be easy
shared because you just needed to know it. Unsurprisingly, a team of two
players won.
Consider me interested.
Gaelan
> On Feb 16, 2019, at 10:33 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> We could just win it in the normal way next time and declare an Agora
> theme...
>
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 01:32, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
>> My reading justifies the Agoran invasion better.
>>
>> Greeting
We could just win it in the normal way next time and declare an Agora
theme...
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 01:32, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> My reading justifies the Agoran invasion better.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > I rather hoped the “mutatis mutandis”
Just as something to keep in mind: failed appeasement attempts should punish
the failed appeaser, but not Agora as a whole (assuming that someone else comes
along and does it correctly).
Gaelan
> On Feb 16, 2019, at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 2/16/2019 4:16 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On 2/16/2019 4:21 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2019-02-16 at 16:16 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote:
Hmm. So the point is that I want to add enough variables that doing it
correctly is a challenge. That way it’s really easy to accidentally mess
up. Any ideas on how to do that without
On 2/16/2019 4:16 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Hmm. So the point is that I want to add enough variables that doing it
correctly is a challenge. That way it’s really easy to accidentally mess
up. Any ideas on how to do that without adding too much tedium?
Regardless of the detailed steps needed, y
My reading justifies the Agoran invasion better.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
I rather hoped the “mutatis mutandis” was implied.
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
BlogNomic almost actually
I rather hoped the “mutatis mutandis” was implied.
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent
> someone
> > over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan wo
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent someone
over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would result in an
Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but my version
sounds better).
Wait, BlogNomic legis
On Sat, 2019-02-16 at 16:16 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Hmm. So the point is that I want to add enough variables that doing it
> correctly is a challenge. That way it’s really easy to accidentally mess
> up. Any ideas on how to do that without adding too much tedium?
FRC-style, perhaps? Every ti
Hmm. So the point is that I want to add enough variables that doing it
correctly is a challenge. That way it’s really easy to accidentally mess
up. Any ideas on how to do that without adding too much tedium?
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:15 PM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I’d prefer that mundane tedi
I’d prefer that mundane tedium (such as just checking some website for the
star’s current position or just running some kind of calculation) wasn’t a
factor. FMPOV it doesn’t add more fun, it’s like playing chess but now with
weights on your wrists.
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 01:04, Aris Merchant <
th
> On Feb 16, 2019, at 6:59 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> Or it could just be the Priest, really
Yes except that as currently worded, if there is a heretic, then the priesthood
remains vacant. We could say that, when/if a player becomes a heretic, then the
most recent priest becomes the inquisi
Religion is strikingly similar to a government lol.
Maybe have the Priest’s focus be the devout and the Inquisitor’s focus be
the pagans.
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 00:57, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 2019, at 6:54 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >
> > Maybe an Inquisitor to coordinate the consen
In case this changes anyone’s plans, I have an idea to change the ritual to
make it harder to perform. Doing it successfully should require consulting
the time, phase of the moon, the way the last three people have performed
it, the current zodiac sign, and other such things.
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 16
Or it could just be the Priest, really
Also, I suggest to be able to waive a Collect by submitting a sufficiently
impressive work of venerative literature or art (it would also be a way to
add more made-up creed and fun roleplay to this)
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 00:54, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Maybe
> On Feb 16, 2019, at 6:54 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> Maybe an Inquisitor to coordinate the consensus-shunning process and
> otherwise suggest appropriately religious punishments.
I like it!!!
Maybe if there is a heretic in a given week, then the Inquisitor can be an
office imposed on the f
Maybe an Inquisitor to coordinate the consensus-shunning process and
otherwise suggest appropriately religious punishments.
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 00:17, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 2019, at 5:25 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Feb 16, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thou
> On Feb 16, 2019, at 5:25 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 16, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Aris Merchant
>> wrote:
>>
>> I don’t much like the idea of enforcing minor violations against someone
>> who hasn’t agreed to it. It doesn’t quite seem fair.
>
> Well, the heretic can point eir finger
> On Feb 16, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I don’t much like the idea of enforcing minor violations against someone
> who hasn’t agreed to it. It doesn’t quite seem fair.
Well, the heretic can point eir finger at all of the faithful for abetting
heresy...
On 2/16/2019 12:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Unless the rules explicitly say “the contract
> can’t punish someone for X”, he meaning of a statement on the part of the
> rules that a person can’t be considered bound to a contract is that the
> rules won’t consider them bound.
If Telnaior's prop
That got sent before I had a chance to proofread it; my apologies for the
embarrassingly large number of spelling mistakes.
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 12:36 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that’s incorrect. Unless the rules explicitly say “the contract
I think that’s incorrect. Unless the rules explicitly say “the contract
can’t punish someone for X”, he meaning of a statement on the part of the
rules that a person can’t be considered bound to a contract is that the
rules won’t consider them bound. Contracts can have their own subjective
opinions
On 2/16/2019 12:11 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
We could use a deposit system like when you deposit for rent.
Oh I think D. Margaux's fix does the job; I was responding to Aris's more
general statement that "under long-standing contract construction rules,
contracts can pretend that they can do rul
We could use a deposit system like when you deposit for rent.
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 9:08 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> Aris,
>
> The more I think about it, the more I think that a judge should throw it
> out. Contracts are made under the intent that they are binding under the
> rules. If a rule
Aris,
The more I think about it, the more I think that a judge should throw it
out. Contracts are made under the intent that they are binding under the
rules. If a rule specifically says that a contract can't do X, the parties
to the contract have agreed that the rules say the contract doesn'
I don’t much like the idea of enforcing minor violations against someone
who hasn’t agreed to it. It doesn’t quite seem fair.
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 11:31 AM D. Margaux wrote:
> I _love_ the idea of enforcing minor rule violations against a pariah.
> Hilarious.
>
> Some revisions to the
Well, it's unclear to me if a judge would say "that office works just like
you would expect except the ADoP doesn't have to track it" or "contracts
can't do that, so those clauses are void". IMO it's just worth a little
precaution with an easily-added clause (eg. when contracts didn't have min
I _love_ the idea of enforcing minor rule violations against a pariah.
Hilarious.
Some revisions to the protocontract below—
///
This contract is to be known as The Church of The Ritual. Parties to the
contract are the faithful; nonparties are heathens. A heathen can become
faithful by annou
On Sat, 2019-02-16 at 10:46 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The discussion of encouraging rules breakages and heresy reminded me
> of this gem by ais523 (for context, Rests=Blots and 24 was the exile
> threshold).
Believe it or not, this actually had ulterior motives. In particular, I
wanted to increa
I believe that under long-standing contract construction rules, contracts
can pretend that they can do rule things even if the rules don’t think so.
The effect is that the contract behaves as closely as possible to the way
in which it would were it a rule.
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 10:24 AM K
The discussion of encouraging rules breakages and heresy reminded me of this
gem by ais523 (for context, Rests=Blots and 24 was the exile threshold).
Rule 2312/0 (Power=1.7)
The Pariah
The Pariah is an elected office, with no reports. Whenever a
player becomes the Pariah, that play
I'm interested👌
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 7:26 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> Thanks—if there’s any interest in this, we can fix that for sure.
>
> > On Feb 16, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think the proposed fix to Telnaior's scam includes an amendment such
> that
> > offices can
Thanks—if there’s any interest in this, we can fix that for sure.
> On Feb 16, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> I think the proposed fix to Telnaior's scam includes an amendment such that
> offices can only be defined by the Rules.
>
>> On 2/16/2019 10:15 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> We
I think the proposed fix to Telnaior's scam includes an amendment such that
offices can only be defined by the Rules.
On 2/16/2019 10:15 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
We must ensure that the Ritual is appeased. I therefore humbly submit to the
Agoran public this proto contract:
///
This contract is
Well I think some of the communications CFJs have given enough
basis for some fixes now...
Proto - communications fixes
Enact the following clause (possibly in R859, but there might be
a better place if we don't want to mess with R859):
If the rules state that certain information must b
We must ensure that the Ritual is appeased. I therefore humbly submit to the
Agoran public this proto contract:
///
This contract is to be known as The Church of The Ritual. Parties to the
contract are the faithful; nonparties are heathens. A player can become
faithful by announcement upon tra
On 2/16/2019 9:52 AM, James Cook wrote:
On the one hand, I am inclined to vote against it --- will it
encourage people to be selective about which rules they follow?
What's interesting to me about this is that it's a collective decision -
as long as one person follows it, everyone is followi
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 17:04, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ok, hopefully last time!
>
> I withdraw the proposal Ritual Sacrifice from the pool.
>
> I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1:
>
>
> Create a Rule entitled
This rather takes away from the elegance of a single rule.
Here's a "simple" option:
Repeal threshold: N Agoran Consent, where N is the maximum of 1 and
10/(A+1) rounded up to the nearest 0.1, and A is the number of weeks the
rule has been continuously appeased.
(Sequence: 10, 5, 3.4, 2.5,
40 matches
Mail list logo
