On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:00 PM Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 10:55 +1100, Madeline wrote: > > On 2017-12-11 03:54, Corona wrote: > > > I cause ACU to transfer to me 5-(no. of Agora's shinies) shinies, > > > destroying ten times that number of bills. > > "Number of Agora's shinies" isn't something I'm expected to know. ;_; > > It strikes me that it might be a good idea to just ban conditional > actions altogether (via proposal), apart from conditional voting (which > is separate in the rules anyway, and has proven to be helpful as an > anti-game-theory measure). > > Right now they're mostly being used as a way to push work from players > onto officers, which is not really a good thing given how hard office > work can be. > > When we used to do an action that might fail, we just did it (and then > stated the circumstances under which it would fail). At least then > messing around with potentially failing actions had some sort of risk > for the person who was doing it, encouraging them to verify that it > worked beforehand. > > -- > ais523 > I would strongly oppose a flat ban on conditional actions. Hopefully the judicial system can work out something reasonable, and if not I'm sure we can legislate some restrictions. Basic conditional actions are useful, although I agree that the trend towards "I just don't want to do work" is worrying. -Aris
