On Nov 19, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Re-enact rule 1994/0 (Power=2) "Ownership of Land" with the text: > > Any existent Land for which ownership has not been explicitly > changed belongs to Agora. > > 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. Each Unit of Land has an Owner switch, tracked by the Cartographer, whose values are any player, any Contract, or Agora (the default). > Re-enact rule 1995/0 (Power=2) "Land Types" with the text: > > Each Unit of Land has a single Land Type. Changes to Land Type are > secured. In addition to Aether, the Land types Black and White are > defined. > > 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 Proprietary Land becomes Aether, the Cartographor > SHALL transfer it to Agora in a timely fashion. > > When an act specifies an alternating Land Type, the Land Type > chosen will be based upon the Land Type used as the previous > alternating Land Type, so that consecutive alternating Land Types > alternate between Black and White. In a timely fashion after a > Player notifies the Cartographor of an act that specifies an > alternating Land Type, the Cartographor MUST announce which Land > Type was used for that act. Each Unit of Land has a Land Type switch, tracked by the Cartographor, whose values are “Black”, “White”, and “Aether” (the default). Changes to Land Type switches are secured. To “change the type” of, or to “transform”, a Unit of Land is to flip its Type switch. A “Unit of X” is a Unit of Land whose Land Type switch has the value X. > Re-enact rule 1996/3 (Power=1), renaming it to "The Cartographor" with > the text: > > The Cartographor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for the > Land of Arcadia. > > The Cartographor's Weekly Report shall include: > > 1. the ownership and land type of all existing land; > 2. all changes in the ownership and land type of existing land > since the most recent report; > 3. the location for the previous week and the current week of each > entity or instrument with a defined location; > 4. all patches and their constituents; and > 5. all facilities and their parent patches. I volunteer, but as the primary designer, I believe you should have priority. This seems like a good chance to flex my registry system a bit, and with 361 distinct land units to worry about (plus the current alternating state and the locations of players), this is an office where automation will pay dividends. > Re-enact rule 1998/2 (Power=1) "Land Topology" with the text: > > Two Units of Land are Adjacent if they have the same Latitude, and > their Longitudes differ by exactly one; or they have the same > Longitude, and their Latitudes differ by exactly one. > > [ Penguin Distance is never referenced again, so I got rid of it. ] > > Two Units of Land are said to be Connected by a specific Type of > Land if it is possible to travel from the first Unit to the second > by only travelling over Land of that specific Type. It might be worth spelling out that it’s possible to travel from one land to an adjacent land unit, and not to any other land unit. I can see some of our more, uh, creative players applying some surprising interpretations of what it means to travel “over” land. > Re-enact rule 1999/0 (Power=1) "Entity Location" with the text: > > Every Player has a single defined Location corresponding to a > single Longitude, Latitude pair. > > No other Entity can have a location unless it is defined in a rule > other than this one. Changes to the Location of an Entity are > secured. If an Entity is specified by this Rule as having a > defined Location, but its Location has not been explicity set or > changed, its Location is set to (0, 0). These should probably be player switches. I’d prefer they were tracked by someone (and not the Registrar), but untracked player switches would also suffice: Location is a player switch, tracked by the Cartographer, whose values are ordered pairs of integers where the first value is a valid Latitude, and the second is a valid Longitude. The default Location is (0, 0). To “move" a player is to flip that player’s Location switch to the Latitude and Longitude of the destination. or similar. > Re-enact rule 2003/11 (Power=1) "Actions in Arcadia" with the text: > > Players CAN destroy: By announcement. > 1. 1 apple to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their > Land Types are the same and the destination is not Aether; > > 2. 2 apples to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if > their Land Types differ and the destination is not Aether; > > 3. 2 apples to set Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to any > Land Type other than Aether, whether or not e is located at > that Land Unit. > > 4. 3 apples or 1 corn to set the Land Type of a random Land Unit > that is adjacent to the Entity's current location, is of type > Aether, and is owned by Agora, to an alternating Land Type. The > Cartographor SHALL make the random determination. The > Cartographor CAN and SHALL in a timely fashion, announce which > Land Unit, if any, is changed by this action. This action has > no effect if there are no qualifying Land Units. > > 5. 4 to set the Land Type of eir current location to any Land Type > of eir choice other than Aether, if and only if the Unit is > owned by Agora. > > 6. 6 to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that is of type Aether > to an alternating Land Type. If you take my switch suggestions, reword the last four of these in terms of verbs defined on Land Type switches. > 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 coin. I’m still unclear as to whether this is meant to imply a single lot with up to three units, or multiple lots. Is the “lots” (plural) before the list meant to imply that multiple lots should be created? Is there any preference for (or against) including land units with facilities on them in lots during these auctions? That’s a hugely important piece of economic policy early on, when only a handful of public facilities exist: auctioning them off early probably locks in the game for a long time, whereas holding them back leaves those facilities available to undercut private owners. > Re-enact rule 2022/5 (Power=1), renaming it "Land Transfiguration" with > the text: > > During the second week of each Agoran Month, the Cartographor > SHALL perform the following actions in sequence, and report these > changes in a timely fashion: > > 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. I suspect the clause “in a timely fashion” ends up attached to “report these changes”, not to “perform and report”, but I don’t think it matters, since the results can’t be reported until the actions are performed, so it still sets an effective time limit on performing the actions. There’s also some voice issues here, where the list switches to passive voice in the middle. Since this is an imperative on the Cartographer, imperative voice might flow better: 1. Flip the Land Type of every unit of land that is not directly connected to a unit of Aether or is not connected by its own land type to a unit of Aether to Aether. 2. Flip all location switches that identify land units so transformed to (0, 0). 3. Transfer all units of Aether that are not owned by Agora to Agora. > [PART III: Creating Facilities] > > Create a new rule (Power=2) "Facilities" with the text: > > Facilities are liquid assets tracked by the Cartographor. In order > for a facility to exist, it MUST be built on a Land Unit. Only one > facility is allowed per Land Unit. > > A player CAN create a facility by announcement by specifying which > Land e wants to build it on, specifying which type of facility e > intends to build, and paying the corresponding build cost. > > If a player owns any facilities with upkeep costs, e shall pay > them before the first day of the next Agoran month. Failing to do > this destroys the facility. 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 > facilities. > > Create a new rule (Power=2) "Asset Generation with Facilities" with the > text: > > When facilities create assets, the assets are added to the > facility's possession. The rule that creates a facility CAN > specify a carrying capacity for assets. If, at any time, the > amount of an asset in the possession of a facility exceeds that > asset's carrying capacity, an amount of that asset is destroyed > until the amount of that asset in the possession of the facility > is equal to its carrying capacity. You’ll need to spell out, in the definition of each kind of Asset, which Facilities may own that kind of Asset. The default limits on ownership don’t include Facilities. > Each facility is either a production facility or processing > facility, to be specified in the rule that creates them. At the > end of every Agoran Week, Agora creates a number of assets in a > production facility specified by the rule which creates the > facility. > > At the end of every Agoran Week, Agora destroys any refinable > assets in the possession of each processing facility that that > facility can change into refinable assets and replaces them with a > corresponding number of refined assets to be specified by the rule > that creates the facility. I think you want “defines” rather than “creates” here - creating facilities is something players do, per “Facilities”, not rules. The intent is clear, but I suspect this would generate some awful CFJs. > A player can take a number of assets from a facility's inventory > by announcement if eir location is the same as the facility's and > the following criteria are met: > > 1. if the facility is built on Public Land, none. > > 2. if the facility is built on Communal Land, e must be a party to > that contract and the text of the contract cannot prohibit > doing so. > > 3. if the facility is built on Private Land, e must own the > facility. > > Create a new rule (Power=2) "Facility Ranks" with the text: > > Rank is a facility switch tracked by the Cartographor defaulting > to 0. Its possible values include all integers between 0 and 4, > inclusive. > > A player CAN increase the rank of a facility e owns by > announcement by paying any upgrade costs of the facility for that > specific rank. “Paying” an asset is defined in terms of both a payor and a payee. You probably want “destroy” here. On Nov 20, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Create a new rule (Power=2) "Varieties of Facilities" with the text: > > You might split this into two rules, one for production facilities and > one for processing facilities. This isn't that big a deal right now, > but it will be if we bring in more facilities and possibly more types > of facilities it will become one. Is this an appropriate situation to suggest a Regulation?
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
