Holy frick. When G. pointed out that this system was like a "giant Go
board" I thought it was a joke about it functioning a bit like a board
game. But after looking up a tutorial of Go, this literally is Go. You
learn something new every day, I suppose.
On 11/16/2017 10:54 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
I would be more than happy to volunteer to track information for either of the
two land reform proposals up for discussion. They both look grand.
Some specific feedback on this one:
On Nov 14, 2017, at 12:17 AM, Reuben Staley <[email protected]> wrote:
Re-enact rule 1993/1 (Power=2) "The Land of Arcadia" with the text:
Arcadia is a land entirely defined by the Arcadian Map (the Map).
The Map is a record kept by the Office of the Cartographor.
The Map divides Arcadia into a finite, discrete number of Units of
Land, or simply Land. Each Unit of Land is an indestructible asset
specified by a pair of integers known as its Latitude and
Longitude.
Every unique pair of integers within the limits defined in the
Rules for Latitude and Longitude signifies an existent Unit of
Land. No other Units of Land exist. Units of Land SHALL only be
created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and
Longitude defined in the Rules.
All values for Latitude and Longitude MUST lie between -9 and +9,
inclusive.
You may want to limit this to the integers, lest we argue over the ownership of
the land at Φ degrees north by τ degrees west, and the myriad other
transcendental land units.
With integers, this is the size of a goban. Given the rest of your mechanics, I
suspect this may be intentional.
[insert standard complaint about old Agoran language]
Land belonging to Agora is called Public Land. Land belonging to
a contract is called Communal Land. Land belonging to any other
entity is called Private Land. Together, Communal Land and Private
Land are called Proprietary Land.
Changes in Land ownership are secured, unless:
1. The Land Unit is Public, and the transfer is specifically
permitted by the rules;
2. The Land Unit is Communal, and the transfer is specifically
permitted by the Contract that owns it;
3. The Land Unit is Private, and the entity that owns it announces
the transfer.
This is a bit of an odd phrasing. I might go for
Changes in Land ownership are secured. Land can be as follows:
(same list, with the final item set off by an “or”.)
Yeah, I was deliberating about how I should phrase that; this was the
best option I found.
Re-enact rule 1995/0 (Power=2) "Land Types" with the text:
Each Unit of Land SHALL have a single Land Type. Changes to Land
Type are secured.
The phrase "Units of X", where X is a Land Type defined by the
Rules, is considered a synonym for "Units of Land that have Land
Type (or Subtype) X"
When existent Land has not had its Type changed as explicitly
permitted by the Rules, or has a Type that is not currently
defined by the Rules, it is considered to have the Land Type of
Aether. Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, Units of Aether
CANNOT be transferred from Agora, or owned by any entity other
than Agora. If Private or Public Land becomes Aether, the
Cartographor SHALL transfer it to Agora in a timely fashion.
Did you mean to permit contracts to own Aether, here?
No. It's been fixed.
Re-enact rule 2004/3 (Power=1) "Land Auctions" with the text:
Every Agoran Week, if the number of units of Private Land is less
than one half the total number of units of Land, an auction SHALL
be initiated. For this auction, the announcer is the Cartographor,
the auctioneer is the Cartographor, the lots are chosen as such:
1. if there exist at least 3 Units of non-Aether Land in the
possession of Agora: any 3 such Units of Land, to be chosen by
the Cartographor;
2. if there exist fewer than 3 Units of non-Aether Land in the
possession of Agora: all such Units;
and the minimum bid is 1 shiny.
I think this is intended to cause one lot per three units owned by Agora, with
a final lot for the remaining one or two units, with the total number of units
auctioned sufficient to put half the units of land in private hands, correct?
I’m not confident in this phrasing, if so.
What? No. This says, if there are 3 land units that Agora owns that are
not Aether, auction them off. The top 3 bidders get the land in the
order the Cartographor specifies in the auction initiation. This is
using the Auctions proposal procedures.
Re-enact rule 2022/5 (Power=1), renaming it "Land Transfiguration" with
the text:
On the fifteenth of each Agoran Month, the Cartographor SHALL
perform the following actions in sequence, and report these
changes in a timely fashion:
Add a “within a timely fashion” here or a late attempt may fail, and the
Cartographer cannot avoid a card.
This marks the third time this has been pointed out. It is now fixed.
1. Every Land Unit, excluding (0, 0) that is not directly
connected to a unit of Aether, or is not connected by its own
type to a unit of Aether, shall be transformed to Aether.
2. Any entities whose locations are on land units so transformed
shall have their locations set to 0,0.
3. If any land unit so transformed is not property of Agora, it
becomes property of Agora.
Go capture rules, in other words, but on a fixed clock. Interesting.
shh.
If one or more units of land that make up a jafit ever have their
ownership or Land Type changed, then:
1. If the change would cause the constituent Land Units to cease
to be connected, then the jafit is destroyed;
2. otherwise, the plot is resized to exclude the Land Unit in
question.
[ This needs to be worded better. Suggest fixes please. Thanks in
advance. ]
I’m actually pretty okay with this phrasing. “Resized” is a loose verb, but a
version of this that directly says that the LU in question is removed from the
plot would clean that up.
Okay sure.
Create a new rule (Power=2) "Zmetah" with the text:
[ Okay, I'm just gonna call everything by Sajem Tan names because why
not. This one means "building" btw. ]
Zmetah (pronounced /zmetɑ/, singular "zmet") are liquid assets
tracked by the Cartographor. In order for a zmet to exist, it MUST
be built on a jafit. Only one zmet is allowed per jafit.
A player CAN create a zmet by announcement by paying specifying
which jafit e wants to build it on, specifying which type of zmet
e intends to build, and paying the corresponding build cost.
If a player owns a zmet, e CAN, by announcement, use any powers
the zmet affords to em.
If a player owns any zmetah with upkeep costs, e SHALL pay them
before the first day of the next Agoran month. Failing to do this
destroys the zmet. In the second to last week of the Agoran Month,
the Cartographor SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to all
those who have not paid upkeep fees on any of eir zmetah.
If we repeal shinies, should we drop upkeep outright, or require an AP upkeep,
or something else? Obviously, this portion is the _most_ in need of a rework.
Upkeep is not only a mechanic that makes sense within the metaphor, but
a mechanic that secretly keeps people from becoming inactive and keeping
on accumulating assets.
Also, this is indeed in need of a rework since I typed all of this up
quick based on my initial thoughts of it and just posted it.
I’d be partial to keeping shinies, but removing the fixed supply and repealing
the floating costs in favour of this, with periodic price adjustments somewhere
if shinies cease to be a limiting factor, or if shinies become an inordinate
obstacle. Given the numbers involved, I suspect a steady but small stipend per
week would work - 2-3 sh. would allow someone to build one Zmet per month, but
they’re liquid enough that players could still pool assets (through contracts
eg.) if they wanted.
I've been working on a total economic reform that will fix this.
(Usual skepticisim about Agorans’ willingness to commit to substantial joint
projects here.)
Create a new rule (Power=2) "Zmet Types" with the text:
The following Zmet types are defined, along with all relevant
statistics:
1. Estate
- Build Cost: 10sh.
- Upkeep Cost: 10sh.
- Powers: The owner of an estate CAN choose to raise eir
voting power by one on up to X proposals, where X is the Nth
triangular number, where N is the amount of Land Units the
jafit which the estate is built on has.
[ I hope that's clear so that someone can fix it lol. But seriously this
sucks. ]
This is clever, but doesn’t fix the basic problem with voting strength rewards,
which is that they’re only generally useful for scam proposals.
Perhaps we should not have estates in that case? I don't have any idea
how to reform it.
2. Quarry
- Build Cost: 5sh.
- Upkeep Cost: 5sh.
- Powers:
[ Depending on what economic reform proposal passes, Quarries will
either create shinies in the owner's possession, or it will do
something else related to shinies.
Grafting on G.’s three-resource system here might work.
The whole economic reform thing has a derivative system of this. I'll
include details in a different message.
-o
--
Trigon
