> On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:06 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca > <mailto: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.
I had missed that they were assets. Entirely my mistake - obviously we don’t need to duplicate that information. >>> 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. Actually, I’d like to get some not-me users on it sooner rather than later. The code’s all Python and the only extant client is also Python, right now, so at least that’s the first language - though the annotation language is (for implementation reasons, mostly) a Scheme variant. Polishing this down to something actually usable (and actually well-documented) is, as they say, an ongoing effort. I’ll contact you off-list, if you’re comfortable beating on some Very Much Beta software with me. >> On Nov 20, 2017, at 2:38 AM, Aris Merchant >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com >> <mailto: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? My thinking was broadly this: Giving an Officer (the Cartographor, likely) the ability to amend some of the controlling values for facilities by Promulgating a Regulation provides a limited way to rebalance things without needing to go through the full proposal cycle. Obviously, that comes with tradeoffs - a malicious Cartographor can manipulate the values for their own gain more easily, too - but it still requires notice and gives players a chance to raise a stink about it (or to assemble a proposal to correct it). Given that these values, specifically, are the ones most core to this mechanic’s integration with the rest of the rules, being able to adjust them early on might be useful. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
