> Incidentally, the huge amounts of disruption in the economy are making > the game rather unsatisfying to play in their own rights.
...I personally enjoy the disruption lol, kind of how american football can be considered more entertaining than golf. But I can understand how, from someone who just arrived and hasn't seen this from the start, thinks this is a total mess. I hope it passes soon because it might be too much for too little time but I hope to see more powerful plays in the future. On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > ais523, can you provide the list of "interested judges" you were working > from for judicial assignments? > > > > Incidentally, the huge amounts of disruption in the economy are making > > the game rather unsatisfying to play in their own rights. > > proto: honorable and dishonorable scams. > [also file under: responsible bug disclosure]. > > - A player CAN, with X support/objections, designate a set of actions > performed by a set of players as a "scam". A set of actions SHOULD > only be considered a scam if it uses rules against the general > intent > but not the letter of the rules, especially if the actions create > a unevenly beneficial result in favor of the scammers. > > - A scam is "honorable" if the actors do not break any rules to > conduct it, if they take a minimally reasonable profit from the > scam, it does not overly break the game beyond what was broken > already, > and if they take a minimal time to submit proposals or initiate > other > methods to fix the loopholes so that the letter of the rules > matches the > broken intent. > > - bring back Scamster title. > > - Fix proposals SHOULD allow scammers to keep rewards from honorable > scams, > but SHOULD NOT allow scammers to keep profits from dishonorable > scams. > > [since of course the scam rules can be scammed if they are overly > technical, > and you can't logically determine the "intent" of rules, the discretion for > intent, reasonable or minimal would be on judges. This amounts to a > mini-equity > system specific to scam repair/restitution]. > > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > > > I'm having huge problems with my email system at the moment; I can't > send or receive at all from the @alumni account, and can't easily send from > the @yahoo account either (you can probably tell that I'm not using my > normal client because this message isn't wrapped properly). I decided to > wait a few days to see if the problems fixed themselves, but they haven't. > > > > In the meantime, Agora's activity blew up, and the combination is making > it impossible for me to cope; I'm hugely behind as it is, and have lost > track of what I need to respond to / what I need to do. Additionally, I'm > receiving messages from the lists out of order, which is making things even > harder to follow (and PSS's messages nearly always get stuck in the spam > filter no matter how often I mark them as not being spam, which makes > things even worse). > > > > If the ability to go inactive were still in the ruleset, I'd use it. As > it isn't, though, I deregister. Hopefully Agora will be in a better place > by the time I get back. > > > > Incidentally, the huge amounts of disruption in the economy are making > the game rather unsatisfying to play in their own rights. It's best if > people don't scam rules until after they've already started working; trying > to plan out a strategy doesn't really work if the ruleset is radically > changed or reinterpreted every couple of weeks. Perhaps there could be some > sort of way to get the economy working as part of a contract, rather than > in the rules (proto-proto: contracts can be given the ability to pend > proposals and award wins by proposal, players who aren't participating in > any of these "economy contracts" can still make AP pends, economy contracts > SHOULD consider making AP pending illegal for their members); that way, we > could have multiple competing economies and people could choose the one > that worked best. > > > > (P.S. I'm strongly opposed to the idea of the Fearmongor. I didn't much > like it previous times it was here, and that was in rulesets which were > already fairly established. Removing fledgling mechanics while we're still > trying to rebuild just sounds like a way to ensure that we never build > anything.) > > > >
