On 12/11/23 14:53, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > Comment: 1. is not restrictive, and permits flipping the activity switch > for succeeding. > Response: This is not the only longstanding switch available in the rules > to be flipped, it's not the intended one, so should we explicitly say > "other than the Activity switch"? could we say "Warning: The activity > switch has repercussions for flipping, we recommend flipping a different > switch, but we won't stop you."?
The activity switch isn't the issue. "Citizenship" is a switch. Registering *immediately* flips a switch. I would suggest: "E has, through game actions e has taken, caused a switch (besides Citizenship) to flip." You could also exclude activity, but that's not necessary IMO. > > Comment: 2. is oddly specific. > Response: This is somewhat true, but it is also based on longstanding rules > that haven't been disrupted. There are also more than one mechanism for > fulfilling this requirement that is longstanding, and I expected that this > level of complexity is to be expected of Agoran players. However, would it > be better to say create an asset and destroy an asset as separate maze > items? What's the example you're thinking of here? I don't know it off the top of my head. I guess I can create and destroy a promise, but it's odd behavior that serves no purpose. I don't think we should be encouraging people to do meaningless actions. > Comment: 6 prevents players that have any patent titles from receiving this > one. Suggestion that only champion patent titles exclude players. > Response: Does the language "E has not won the game, and does not have this > patent title." work better? Winning awards a specific patent title, Champion. So it can be: "E does not already have the Rookie or Champion titles prior to awarding emself this patent title." -- nix
