On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > > 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).
Why would Land Units have an owner switch? Land Units are assets, and players can own assets, so it makes sense that you'd just refer to the owner of a Land Unit as its owner. >> 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. Oh, that's better, thanks. >> 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. I don't know how your registry system works, but I think it would be a good opportunity to try it. As long as I can access it with Python -- since that's what I'll probably be using -- it should be good. >> 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. Good plan. I'll fix it in v4. >> 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? Sorry, it's supposed to be 3 lots which are given to the first, second, and third highest bidders according to ATMunn's Auction Proposal. > 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. Only if the Cartographor thinks there should be, at least at this point. Do you think we should prioritize land with facilities? Like I said, I want to keep around some public facilities to help new players at the beginning of the game. Also, there's the whole idea where the Cartographor sets a list of Land Units that are "protected" (I explained this in further detail in a different reply). >> 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. Ech. I'll find a way to fix that. > 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. That is indeed a better word. I didn't know what verb I did want to use, so I just used that one. I'll fix it. >> 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. Indeed I do. I wouldn't have caught that. > 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? I don't understand what purposes it would serve; can you clarify? -- Trigon
