Mischief wrote:
On 1/26/25 4:52 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
a) eir Agoran Birthdate (if known), otherwise
How do we legally resolve "if known"? Known to whom?
Maybe this... change it to Official Agoran Birthday (that way it doesn't
matter if it's estimated or no
On 1/26/25 4:52 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
a) eir Agoran Birthdate (if known), otherwise
How do we legally resolve "if known"? Known to whom?
Maybe this... change it to Official Agoran Birthday (that way it doesn't
matter if it's estimated or not) and add somethi
Proto-Proposal: Clean up birthdays
Amend Rule 2585 (Birthday Gifts) by replacing the first paragraph with:
A player's Agoran Birthdate is the day e first registered.
Estimated Agoran Birthdate is a player switch, tracked by the
Registrar in eir monthly report, with values null
Mischief wrote:
1) the number of tickets held by each entity holding one or
more tickets (however, e NEED NOT list any such entities
who, as of the time the spin is resolved, are not
players);
"the number of tickets held by each play
On 1/2/25 6:59 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
I'm worried that that the existence of a simple random game would have
a chilling effect on the creation of more skill-based games; players
have to choose where to spend their candles, and if a game with no
skill exists, then players will onl
On Wed, 2025-01-01 at 21:19 -0500, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 1/1/25 9:04 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> > I mean, that's certainly better, but I guess I was imagining some form
> > of skill being required. These were pitched as minigames or small
> > tournaments. I'
On 1/1/25 9:04 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
I mean, that's certainly better, but I guess I was imagining some form
of skill being required. These were pitched as minigames or small
tournaments. I'll think about it, I guess (and it's moot if nobody else
would object anyway).
I do
On 12/31/24 18:12, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 12/31/24 5:55 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> I think I would object to this on principle. My expectation was that
>> contests would be, well, contests, rather than arbitrage on the spendy
>> -> candle conversion rate.
> E
On 12/31/24 5:55 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
I think I would object to this on principle. My expectation was that
contests would be, well, contests, rather than arbitrage on the spendy
-> candle conversion rate.
Even with the double risk element (risk that another participant wi
On 12/31/24 17:53, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> Quick summary: players are better off -- in expectation, at least --
> gambling their excess spendies here than converting them directly to
> radiance, but there is also risk involved. Also, the Veblen might even
> affect the outcome!
>
>
I posted a prior version of this to Discord earlier this month for some
initial feedback, but I wanted to give folks another chance to weigh in.
Because the amendment process is (deliberately) a bit cumbersome and
making it into a contest will require acting without 2 objections, I'd
rather
On 11/16/24 11:51 AM, Mischief wrote:
Ooo, that's even better. As I was looking into the "patch" approach, it
was turning into a mess of amendments to multiple rules.
Maybe it could also go into the list in rule 1742 (Contracts)... that
way if it's additionally by announcement, there's a spec
On 11/16/24 8:17 AM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote:
Having spent a little while thinking how I would approach such a patch,
I think it might be simpler to just avoid using the "fee" language in
this new rule.
Perhaps something like this:
Whenever a contest's body prov
On Fri, 2024-11-15 at 22:43 +, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-
discussion wrote:
> On Sun, 2024-11-10 at 10:50 -0500, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> >Contests are the only entities are permitted to own candles, and
> >any candles held by any other entity are immediately
On Sun, 2024-11-10 at 10:50 -0500, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> Proto-proposal: "The Game is Afoot" (AI=1.5, coauthor=ais523 [e inspired
> the original idea])
>
> [Maybe this could be a way to spur some more gameplay.
>
> The underlying idea:
> Spendies -> candles (contest subgames) ->
Proto-proposal: "The Game is Afoot" (AI=1.5, coauthor=ais523 [e inspired
the original idea])
[Maybe this could be a way to spur some more gameplay.
The underlying idea:
Spendies -> candles (contest subgames) -> radiance
Players can still buy radiance directly, they still get a universal
basic
Janet wrote:
This doesn't seem to actually address the issue of perverse incentives?
It creates *different* incentives (by creating but not transferring) but
doesn't change the fact that people are incentivized to vote against
proposals they didn't author in order to prevent them from gaining
ec
Because crystals were always meant to incentivize repeals. Reenactments I
thought would just be funny.
And there will always be incentives one way or another... but I'm thinking
that nomic has this axis of integration versus separation that was always
meant to be bridged? Perhaps what's missing is
On 9/17/24 20:46, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> {
> Title: Crystal Improvements?
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-authors: Mischief, Janet
>
> [This is intended to simplify crystals for me, reduce the disincentives,
> and increase the speed of crystallization, whilst still encoura
On Tue, 2024-09-17 at 17:46 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> All previous crystals are destroyed, and each crystal owner gains crystals
> equal to the total size of crystals they owned previously.
Shouldn't this take instability into account? Otherwise, it
disproportionately rewards
{
Title: Crystal Improvements?
Adoption Index: 1.0
Author: 4st
Co-authors: Mischief, Janet
[This is intended to simplify crystals for me, reduce the disincentives,
and increase the speed of crystallization, whilst still encouraging
amendment and repeals over creation. I do not think crystals shoul
On 9/2/24 18:19, Kiako via agora-discussion wrote:
> With the end of stones nigh, I was doing some brainstorming for a
> possible new system to introduce (though I know there's value in
> allowing no systems to be present for a bit.)
>
> The following system is similar to stones, but simplified,
On 9/3/24 17:40, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 9/3/24 3:03 PM, Kiako via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 9/3/24 7:28 AM, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> however, if a Power Grab specifies zero Stamps this fee is
>>> automatically considered paid.
>> Do fee-based actions not alre
On 9/3/24 3:03 PM, Kiako via agora-discussion wrote:
On 9/3/24 7:28 AM, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
however, if a Power Grab specifies zero Stamps this fee is
automatically considered paid.
Do fee-based actions not already consider 0-item fees trivially paid?
Not explicitly as far as
On 9/3/24 7:28 AM, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
however, if a Power Grab specifies zero Stamps this fee is
automatically considered paid.
Do fee-based actions not already consider 0-item fees trivially paid?
The stronger of two fulfilled Power Grabs is the one with greater
Influence, o
On 9/3/24 9:49 AM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Sep 3, 2024, at 7:29 AM, Mischief via agora-discussion
wrote:
Proto-proposal: "Frank Voting" AI=2
Where's Frank?
Cancelled.
--
Mischief
Collector
Hat: steampunk hat
Vitality: alive
Bang holdings: 1
Gone
On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 14:49, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion
<[agora-discussion@agoranomic.org](mailto:On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 14:49,
secretsnail9 via agora-discussion < wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 2024, at 7:29 AM, Mischief via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Proto-proposal: "Frank Voti
> On Sep 3, 2024, at 7:29 AM, Mischief via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
>
> Proto-proposal: "Frank Voting" AI=2
Where's Frank?
--
snail
On 9/3/24 9:08 AM, Oliver Nguyen via agora-discussion wrote:
I noticed you used Stamps for everything… why is that?
They don't tend to circulate very much at the moment. This is intended
to spur trading and spending Stamps.
Based on Discord discussions, there are some ideas in circulation f
I noticed you used Stamps for everything… why is that?
On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 13:28, Mischief via agora-discussion
<[agora-discussion@agoranomic.org](mailto:On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 13:28,
Mischief via agora-discussion < wrote:
> Proto-proposal: "Frank Voting" AI=2
>
> [The new model in a nutshel
Proto-proposal: "Frank Voting" AI=2
[The new model in a nutshell: Offices -> Complexity -> Stamps -> Power
Grabs -> Voting Strength
Voting Strength is still in the 3-6 range, and there is a universal
basic income for Stamps. Uncommon Stamps are more valuable for Power Grabs.
The Assessor
On 9/2/24 6:19 PM, Kiako via agora-discussion wrote:
Once per week, a player (the flippor) CAN by announcement "flip" a chit
e own
"e owns"
> - Desert Chit (0, varies): Destroy this chit. (The flippor NEED NOT
> specify a flippee.)
"(created only as explicitly specified by this rule)" or so
On 9/2/24 5:19 PM, Kiako via agora-discussion wrote:
The "Engagement Edition" adds conditions to the economy-boosting
chits, by requiring:
(1) boulder upkeep (in a way that shouldn't produce more work for the
Absurdor),
(2) timely reports, and
(3) referendum to be voted on and proposals to
On Mon, 2024-09-02 at 17:19 -0500, Kiako via agora-discussion wrote:
> - Sky Chit (6): If the flippor or the flippee (or both) is an officer
> and e has published each of eir reports since that report's most
> recent tardiness, the flippor and flippee each gain 1 stamp of the
> other's type.
"if n
With the end of stones nigh, I was doing some brainstorming for a
possible new system to introduce (though I know there's value in
allowing no systems to be present for a bit.)
The following system is similar to stones, but simplified, and with a
strong emphasis on cooperation and negotiation,
On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 5:16 PM Mischief via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> Proto-Proposal: "Stone of the People" (AI=2)
>
> [This is meant as a replacement for the Sabotage Stone. It's a milder
> effect than the Sabotage Stone. However, you can target all of a sing
On Sun, Aug 18, 2024 at 5:16 PM Mischief via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> Amend rule 2645 (The Stones) by adding the following to the list of
> stones at the end:
>
>- Popular Stone (weekly): When wielded, the wielder may specify
> one or more pro
Proto-Proposal: "Stone of the People" (AI=2)
[This is meant as a replacement for the Sabotage Stone. It's a milder
effect than the Sabotage Stone. However, you can target all of a single
player's proposals at once, so replicating the Sabotage Stone's
workaround would at least require multipl
Proposal 9154 has just re-introduced one of my pet peeves into the
ruleset: the phrase "CAN publish". It is unclear what this actually
means, and it appears to be attempting to redefine "publish", which is
already defined in Rule 478. This potentially even presents R2125
concerns, though I doubt a
Proto-Proposal: No double harvest redux
(AI = 3)
Amend Rule 2124 (Performing Tabled Actions) by replacing this text:
An intent is ripe if was tabled within the past 14 days, the
Speaker hasn't objected to it in the past 48 hours, and its
conditions, if any, are each clearly and
Since this would mean that players will generally spend 5 spendies to
keep the cashflow of everyone, I would propose instead:
- Make the maximum N to be 20 to account for that
or (not exclusive)
- Add an additional reward to whoever participated in the anti-pirate
defense (proportional to their p
Proto-Proposal: "Yo Ho Ho!" (AI=1)
Amend rule 2690 (Spendies) by replacing the sentence reading:
At the beginning of each month, every player is granted 20
Spendies.
with:
At the beginning of each month, every player is granted 5 + N
Spendies, where N is the lesser of
On 7/3/24 16:29, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
>The Veblen Cost is a secured switch with values of positive
>integers and a default of 1.
"singleton switch".
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Mischief via agora-discussion [2024-07-03 16:29]:
>
> Create a rule entitled "The Veblen" with power 0.5 reading:
>
> The Veblen is a unique indestructible fixed asset.
>
> Ownership of the Veblen is entirely restricted to Agora and
> players. If the Veblen is owned by the Lost
Create a rule entitled "The Veblen" with power 0.5 reading:
The Veblen is a unique indestructible fixed asset.
Ownership of the Veblen is entirely restricted to Agora and
players. If the Veblen is owned by the Lost and Found Department
or in abeyance, it is immediately
Then I wear the plain hat by announcement (readable logical ruleset :3).
On Sat, 25 May 2024 at 20:21, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> I wear the Armored Helm by announcement.
>
> Incidentally, it is very big, and very shiny. Likely bigger and shinier
> than anyone else's. Most p
I wear the Armored Helm by announcement.
Incidentally, it is very big, and very shiny. Likely bigger and shinier
than anyone else's. Most probably the biggest, and shiniest. Incidentally.
On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 1:49 AM Mischief via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>
This is not the first time I've seen this. Clearly let's make this stick
this time peeps!!
On Thu, May 23, 2024, 4:49 PM Mischief via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> Proto-proposal ("Hats" AI=1):
>
> [The idea here is to have a playful mechanism that also serves as
Proto-proposal ("Hats" AI=1):
[The idea here is to have a playful mechanism that also serves as a straw poll of how
players are feeling. Inspired by the self-reporting approach in the "Bang!"
subgame, a player could include eir current hat in eir signature if e wished. The
recordkeepor langu
On 4/20/24 23:59, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> Here's a draft to cleanly separate the ratification of documents and
> statements, with an eye towards fixing the proposal ratification bug
> that ais523 pointed out. (I don't think this itself would fix it, since
> the R2034 would still ne
Janet wrote:
When a document is to be ratified, the publication time is the instant
at which the document to be ratified was published. The truth time of
the document is the instant at which the document specifies that it was
true, if any, or the publication time otherwise. Ratification of a
doc
Here's a draft to cleanly separate the ratification of documents and
statements, with an eye towards fixing the proposal ratification bug
that ais523 pointed out. (I don't think this itself would fix it, since
the R2034 would still need to be updated to include explicit statements
about the attribu
On 4/14/24 12:41, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> Enact a new Power = 2 rule titled "Sortition Procedure" with the
> following text:
>
> At the beginning of each quarter, the ADoP CAN by announcement, and
> SHALL in a timely manner, initiate a sorition for each sortitioned
> office if
On 4/14/24 11:41, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> Title: Sortition
> Author: nix
> Co-Authors:
> AI: 2
>
> [This proposal experiments with a much older idea of democracy -
> sortition. In this process, instead of an election the office is
> randomly assigned to everyone that shows interest at re
Title: Sortition
Author: nix
Co-Authors:
AI: 2
[This proposal experiments with a much older idea of democracy -
sortition. In this process, instead of an election the office is
randomly assigned to everyone that shows interest at regular intervals.
In theory the advantages is that it avoids us bec
On 22/03/2024 00:01, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> I proto-create the following proposal:
>
> {{{
> Title: One from the archives
> Author: Gaelan
> AI: 1
>
> Re-enact rule 417, with the following text: {
> The Archivist is an office; its holder is responsible for ensuring
> the
I proto-create the following proposal:
{{{
Title: One from the archives
Author: Gaelan
AI: 1
Re-enact rule 417, with the following text: {
The Archivist is an office; its holder is responsible for ensuring
the continued availability of documents of historical interest.
The archivist’s mont
On 3/16/24 21:17, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> Retitle R2642 (Gathering Stones) to "Stone Cost" and amend R2642 to read
> in full:
>
> Stone Cost is a Stone switch with values of non-negative integers
> and a default of 50. Stone Cost is tracked by the Stonemason.
>
> When a
On 3/16/24 22:37, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Also, per precedent, this has to say "with ownership wholly restricted
>> to players and contracts" (or similar), otherwise it doesn't override
>> the default of being ownable by Agora.
> What precedent? That's an unusual way to use defaults.
W
On 3/16/24 21:27, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> "P=1" grr...
>
> "Spendies are a currency".
"Fixed" (tho these are not strictly 'errors') in local.
> Also, per precedent, this has to say "with ownership wholly restricted
> to players and contracts" (or similar), otherwise it doesn't o
On 3/16/24 22:17, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> Here's a proto, let me know what you think:
>
> {
> Title: Spendies
> Author: nix
> Co-Authors:
> AI: 2
Idea seems fine? I'm pretty bad at judging economies though.
The obligatory copy-editing follows:
> [Spendies are simple. We all start wit
Here's a proto, let me know what you think:
{
Title: Spendies
Author: nix
Co-Authors:
AI: 2
[Spendies are simple. We all start with the same amount every month,
and if you don't use them you lose them. You can transfer them, put
them in contracts, etc. But they will go away. What's important is w
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 11:13 AM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >> Amend R2642, "Gathering Stones", to read in full:
> >>
> >> Grab Cost is an integer stone switch with default value 10, tracked
> >> by the Stonemason. At the beginning of each week, th
On 11/26/23 15:47, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet wrote:
>
>> To address some of the holes that befell Agoran't:
>>
>> {
>>
>> Add (somewhere? enact a new rule? at power 2 or 3?):
>>
>> {
>>
>> A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" thereby
>> designates tha
Janet wrote:
To address some of the holes that befell Agoran't:
{
Add (somewhere? enact a new rule? at power 2 or 3?):
{
A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" thereby
designates that a player NEED NOT comply with any provision of any Rule
that requires or forbids em fr
On 11/22/23 18:55, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Enact a new rule titled "Stamp Specialization":
>>
>
> I think stamp specialty should be secured at power 2, since it affects
> voting strength, but I don't see that listed here. i
> Also... Stamp specialization switch would need to be tr
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 2:48 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Enact a new rule titled "Stamp Specialization":
>
> Stamp Specialization is a player switch with potential values "None"
> (default), "Any", "Selfsame", "Stone", and "Strength", tracked by
On 11/22/23 17:52, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 11/22/23 16:48, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 11/22/23 17:38, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> If no player has won by victory tokens in 3 months, the player with
> the most victory tokens CAN win by announcemen
On 11/22/23 16:48, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 11/22/23 17:38, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
If no player has won by victory tokens in 3 months, the player with
the most victory tokens CAN win by announcement.
Enact a new rule titled "Stamps for Strengt
On 11/22/23 17:38, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> If no player has won by victory tokens in 3 months, the player with
>>> the most victory tokens CAN win by announcement.
>>>
>>> Enact a new rule titled "Stamps for Strength":
>>>
>>> A player CAN pay three stamps with the "Strength
This is likely the last proto before a submission, feedback is
appreciated. Thanks to Janet for the feedback and ais523 for the victory
condition idea:
{
Changes:
- Borrowed ais523's proto's win condition.
- Changed minting to be based on your own holdings. The more stamps you
own, the less stam
On 11/11/23 14:37, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> {
>> Enact a new rule titled "Stamp Specialization":
>>
>> Specialization is a stamp type switch with potential values
>> "None" (default), "Any", "Selfsame", "Stone", and "Strength",
>> tracked by the Collector.
>
> Are we s
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 7:00 AM 4st nomic <4st.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
Also Adoption index needs to be at least
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, Mu
Title: Multiple Dreams
Author: Goren Barak
Adoption Index: 1
Coathors:
{
Rewrite Rule 2675 (Dream of Wandering) as such:
The Dream Keeper is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping
track of the dreams of all active players.
Dream is a secured active player switch, tracked by the Dream Ke
I think it would be better to just explicitly list the options?
I think informal agreements shouldn't be included as part of that list.
"unless the provision merely requires em to abide by a contract, promise,
or pledge to which e has consented."
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 1:04 PM Janet Cobb via ago
On 11/20/23 18:43, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 11/20/23 12:04, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" thereby
>> designates that a player NEED NOT comply with any provision of any Rule
>> that requires or forbids em from perfo
> On Nov 20, 2023, at 11:44 PM, 4st nomic via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 3:43 PM nix via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/23 12:04, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> A Rule that purports to designate an action as "u
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 8:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> * Democracy Gem (Assessor): As part of eir weekly duties, the Assessor
> SHALL, and CAN by announcement, award 3 Change Gems to each player who
> voted FOR on at least half the referenda that we
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 3:43 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 11/20/23 12:04, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> > A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" thereby
> > designates that a player NEED NOT comply with any provision of
On 11/20/23 12:04, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" thereby
> designates that a player NEED NOT comply with any provision of any Rule
> that requires or forbids em from performing or refraining from
> performing that action, unles
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:05 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> To address some of the holes that befell Agoran't:
>
> {
>
> Add (somewhere? enact a new rule? at power 2 or 3?):
>
> {
>
> A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" ther
On 11/20/23 13:10, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> IMO: add to this list "sending a public message"
That's more complicated since we legitimately want some restrictions on
that. I'll look at it separately.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
IMO: add to this list "sending a public message"
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 10:05 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> To address some of the holes that befell Agoran't:
>
> {
>
> Add (somewhere? enact a new rule? at power 2 or 3?):
>
> {
>
> A Rule that pur
To address some of the holes that befell Agoran't:
{
Add (somewhere? enact a new rule? at power 2 or 3?):
{
A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" thereby
designates that a player NEED NOT comply with any provision of any Rule
that requires or forbids em from performing or
Draft fix for the bug in R748 that ais523 pointed out:
{
Amend Rule 478 by replacing "Allowing actions performed by sending a
message to take place simultaneously must be done explicitly and is
secured at power 2." with "Allowing regulated actions performed by
sending a message to take place simu
On 11/19/23 09:37, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, 2023-11-19 at 03:57 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 11/19/23 03:55, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> Fwiw I don't mind incentivizing change nor more blots. If what it takes to
>>> win becomes being a super
On 2023-11-19 00:28, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> Similarly, I don't think it's a good to incentivize pointing out minor
> crimes. That's caused issues in the past.
I actually believe that we might already be doing that by not allowing
players with blots to win. People know if they hav
On Sun, 2023-11-19 at 03:57 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 11/19/23 03:55, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Fwiw I don't mind incentivizing change nor more blots. If what it takes to
> > win becomes being a super goodie two shoes so be it
>
> The last time we incentivi
On 11/19/23 03:55, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> Fwiw I don't mind incentivizing change nor more blots. If what it takes to
> win becomes being a super goodie two shoes so be it
The last time we incentivized finger-pointing for personal economic gain
we had a long-term player FAGE. This
Fwiw I don't mind incentivizing change nor more blots. If what it takes to
win becomes being a super goodie two shoes so be it
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023, 9:29 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 11/18/23 11:49, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> > * Demo
On 11/18/23 11:49, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> * Democracy Gem (Assessor): As part of eir weekly duties, the Assessor
> SHALL, and CAN by announcement, award 3 Change Gems to each player who
> voted FOR on at least half the referenda that were resolved that week;
> and SHALL NOT resolve re
On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 10:50 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Here are some thoughts about a new economy that I've been thinking
> about. These would ideally work in tandem with existing subgames /
> other subgames that other players might propose / other
Here are some thoughts about a new economy that I've been thinking
about. These would ideally work in tandem with existing subgames /
other subgames that other players might propose / other economies that
other players might propose, rather than being a replacement.
This is just a sketch, so it do
On 11/10/23 21:16, nix via agora-discussion wrote:
> Here is a proto economy. It tries to work with the existing game
> structures. Here's how it works:
>
> The core gameplay revolves around three different win conditions: Stamp
> collecting, which works exactly as currently, stone collecting, whic
Here is a proto economy. It tries to work with the existing game
structures. Here's how it works:
The core gameplay revolves around three different win conditions: Stamp
collecting, which works exactly as currently, stone collecting, which
works nearly the same, and a new method of victory tokens
juan wrote:
Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-26 13:08]:
"Why should this be in the rules?" is a valid question. Putting
something in the rules means that everybody has to pay attention to it,
lest it change out from under them to actually do something, and that
people (like me) have rul
Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-26 13:28]:
> On 6/12/23 13:20, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> > --- RULE PROTO ---
> > Equality is a natural player switch tracked by the Nomos.
> >
> > The Protected Classes is a singleton switch tracked by the Nomos with
> > values on lists of properti
4st nomic via agora-discussion [2023-06-26 10:39]:
> What do you mean the rules don't do anything? Clearly, they increase juan's
> voting strength B)
One of them was created by proposal that explicitly removed that.
--
juan
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 10:31 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 6/26/23 13:20, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-06-26 13:08]:
> >> "Why should this be in the rules?" is a valid question. Putting
> >> somethin
1 - 100 of 1834 matches
Mail list logo
