Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

[Reuben Staley]

On 11/14/2017 7:50 AM, ATMunn wrote:
I haven't read through this entire thing yet, but I will, leaving 
comments as I go. I haven't looked at anyone else's comments yet either, 
so forgive me if I cover something someone else has already mentioned.


The only problem I see with this right off the bat is that G. has 
already made a draft proposal dealing with land in a different way (see 
DIS: SimAgora 2000). These two proposals would probably


Agreed. Once that appeared in my inbox, I knew I had to get mine out quick.


On 11/14/2017 12:17 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
I'm done with a very, very rough draft of this proposal. Tell me how 
you all think it looks.


=

Title: "Putting Agora on a Map"
AI: 2
Author: Trigon
Co-Authors:

The square brackets are not proposal text and all that jazz.

[ PART I: Removing and Changing Stuff ]

Repeal rules 2488, 2489, 2490, and 2491.

[ I honestly tried to keep the estates, but these changes are so radical
   that it wouldn't be compatible. ]

Amend rule 2500 by replacing "2" with "6".

Replace all instances of "1 Action Point" with "3 Action Points" in the
order they appear.
In a specific rule, or in all rules? If it's in a specific rule, you 
should specify that rule; if it's all rules, I believe you still need to 
specify all rules it appears in (that may not be true, however)


I meant in all rules. I think it's generally a good idea to specify 
which rules, but it isn't required.



[ Unlike most reforms, I want to keep AP around, mostly because the 2003
   version had "Action Units" which were a similar concept. I reworked it
   though, so here you go. ]

[PART II: Making Land]

Re-enact rule 1993/1 (Power=2) "The Land of Arcadia" with the text:

   Arcadia is a land entirely defined by the Arcadian Map (the Map).
   The Map is a record kept by the Office of the Cartographor.
Just saying it is "a record" seems a bit broad. I don't know how you 
would make that more specific without being over-complicated, though.


I just kept this wording from the original maps rules. I don't know how 
else to say it.



   The Map divides Arcadia into a finite, discrete number of Units of
   Land, or simply Land. Each Unit of Land is an indestructible asset
   specified by a pair of integers known as its Latitude and
   Longitude.

   Every unique pair of integers within the limits defined in the
   Rules for Latitude and Longitude signifies an existent Unit of
   Land. No other Units of Land exist. Units of Land SHALL only be
   created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and
   Longitude defined in the Rules.
Not sure SHALL is what you want here, maybe "can only be ... Any other 
way is INEFFECTIVE"?


VJ pointed that out already; it'll be fixed in the next version.


   All values for Latitude and Longitude MUST lie between -9 and +9,
   inclusive.

   The Total Land Area of Arcadia is the number of existent Units of
   Land defined by permissible Latitude and Longitude pairs.

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.

   Changes in Land ownership are secured, unless:

   1. The Land Unit is Public, and the transfer is specifically
  permitted by the rules;

   2. The Land Unit is Communal, and the transfer is specifically
  permitted by the Contract that owns it;

   3. The Land Unit is Private, and the entity that owns it announces
  the transfer.

Re-enact rule 1995/0 (Power=2) "Land Types" with the text:

   Each Unit of Land SHALL have a single Land Type. Changes to Land
   Type are secured.
Again, don't think you want SHALL here. That makes it possible but 
ILLEGAL for it to have more than one Land Type. I think "Each Unit of 
Land has a single Land Type" works just fine.


Very true, this wording is garbage. Again, old Agoran Language screwing 
up the way rules are written.



   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 Private or Public Land becomes Aether, the
   Cartographor SHALL transfer it to Agora in a timely fashion.

   When an act specifies an alternating 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report: 11-14-17

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> Actually, is any of the ADoP's report self-ratifying? It says nowhere in rule
> 2138 that it is.

All switch sections of reports self-ratify by R2162.  Interim is
not a switch, officeholder is though.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report: 11-14-17

[ATMunn]

Actually, is any of the ADoP's report self-ratifying? It says nowhere in rule 
2138 that it is.

On 11/14/2017 2:44 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:

I don't believe interim-ness is self-ratifying.

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 at 09:08 ATMunn  wrote:


It's been like that for several reports, and nobody brought it to my
attention. I believe it's self-ratified by this point.

On 11/14/2017 7:10 AM, Telnaior wrote:

In which case CoE: The office of Tailor is not interim.


On 2017-11-14 14:33, Alexis Hunt wrote:

I'm pretty sure it isn't. I won a Tailor election after taking over.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 22:15 Madeline  wrote:


How did Tailor become interim ALREADY when the last election was a

month

ago?


On 2017-11-14 13:44, ATMunn wrote:

[I think I'm going to start including dates in the subject lines of my
reports. It just seems like a convenient thing to have.]

As per my weekly duties as ADoP, I hereby publish the following

report.


=Metareport=
This report is effective as of the time of its publishing.

Date of last report: 2017-11-07
Date of this report: 2017-11-14

Total offices: 17
Filled offices: 94.11%
Consolidation: 52.94%
Late reports: 0%

OFFICES

Office Holder   SinceLast Election
Interim?[3]




-

ADoP[1]ATMunn   2017-10-20   2017-10-20
Agronomist o2017-11-06   2017-11-06
ArbitorG.   2017-09-15   2017-09-21
Assessor   PSS[2]   2017-10-12   2017-10-12
Herald G.   2017-09-13   2017-09-13
Notary o2017-10-22   2017-10-30
Prime Minister Alexis   2017-10-20   2017-10-20
Promotor   Aris 2016-10-21   2017-09-21
RefereeV.J. Rada2017-10-24   2017-11-07
Registrar  PSS[2]   2017-04-18   2017-09-21
Regkeepor  Aris 2017-07-06   2017-09-13
Reportor   天火狐2017-09-13   2017-09-13
Rulekeepor Alexis   2017-11-06   2017-11-06
SpeakerQuazie   2017-10-09   2014-04-21
Surveyor   o2017-05-08   2017-11-06
Tailor Alexis   2017-10-01   2017-10-12 Y
Treasuror  o2016-10-22   2017-09-21




-

[1] Associate Director of Personnel
[2] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
[3] Interim offices are offices that are either vacant, or the holder
of the office was not elected to that office.

REPORTS

Office Monthly? ReportLast
PublishedLate[1]




-

ADoP[2] Offices 2017-11-14
Agronomist  Farms 2017-11-07
Arbitor Judicial matters 2017-11-12
Herald YPatent titles 2017-10-27
Herald  Matters of Honour 2017-11-12
Notary  Contracts 2017-11-07
PromotorProposal pool 2017-11-12
Referee Rule violations 2017-11-13
Registrar   Players, Fora 2017-11-12
Registrar  YPlayer history 2017-10-31
Regkeepor   Regulations 2017-11-12
ReportorThe Agoran Newspaper 2017-11-12
Rulekeepor  Short Logical Ruleset 2017-11-11
Rulekeepor YFull Logical Ruleset 2017-10-22
SurveyorEstates 2017-11-07
Tailor YRibbons 2017-11-02
Treasuror   Shinies & FV[3] 2017-11-07




-

[1] ! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods

missed.

[2] Associate Director of Personnel
[3] Floating Value

ELECTIONS

Office Initiated   Phase  Candidates




-






-

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's my birthday!

[Alexis Hunt]

It used to be that claiming your White right away made sense, but now, you
should hang onto it since it makes Transparent easier.

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 at 12:40 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 09:25 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > As a counterpoint, if there's someone you feel has really served
> > > as a mentor -- it's not always about the $$.  (IIRC it was originated
> > > as a "mentorship" sort of badge).
> >
> > That was back when different sorts of VCs were mostly interchangeable,
> > though (and so there was no benefit between getting them that way, and
> > getting them from, e.g., proposals or judging).
>
> That's fair enough, but before *that*, in the Boons system, we specifically
> called out the a "Mentorship" boon as a particular sort of reward to
> encourage new players to seek mentors and older players to act as
> mentors.  I always thought of the White ribbon as a continuation of
> that and plenty have been awarded on that basis (the Rule of course
> offers no guidance either way).
>
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Weekly Report: 11-14-17

[Alexis Hunt]

I don't believe interim-ness is self-ratifying.

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 at 09:08 ATMunn  wrote:

> It's been like that for several reports, and nobody brought it to my
> attention. I believe it's self-ratified by this point.
>
> On 11/14/2017 7:10 AM, Telnaior wrote:
> > In which case CoE: The office of Tailor is not interim.
> >
> >
> > On 2017-11-14 14:33, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >> I'm pretty sure it isn't. I won a Tailor election after taking over.
> >>
> >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 22:15 Madeline  wrote:
> >>
> >>> How did Tailor become interim ALREADY when the last election was a
> month
> >>> ago?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2017-11-14 13:44, ATMunn wrote:
>  [I think I'm going to start including dates in the subject lines of my
>  reports. It just seems like a convenient thing to have.]
> 
>  As per my weekly duties as ADoP, I hereby publish the following
> report.
> 
>  =Metareport=
>  This report is effective as of the time of its publishing.
> 
>  Date of last report: 2017-11-07
>  Date of this report: 2017-11-14
> 
>  Total offices: 17
>  Filled offices: 94.11%
>  Consolidation: 52.94%
>  Late reports: 0%
> 
>  OFFICES
> 
>  Office Holder   SinceLast Election
>  Interim?[3]
> 
> >>>
> -
>  ADoP[1]ATMunn   2017-10-20   2017-10-20
>  Agronomist o2017-11-06   2017-11-06
>  ArbitorG.   2017-09-15   2017-09-21
>  Assessor   PSS[2]   2017-10-12   2017-10-12
>  Herald G.   2017-09-13   2017-09-13
>  Notary o2017-10-22   2017-10-30
>  Prime Minister Alexis   2017-10-20   2017-10-20
>  Promotor   Aris 2016-10-21   2017-09-21
>  RefereeV.J. Rada2017-10-24   2017-11-07
>  Registrar  PSS[2]   2017-04-18   2017-09-21
>  Regkeepor  Aris 2017-07-06   2017-09-13
>  Reportor   天火狐2017-09-13   2017-09-13
>  Rulekeepor Alexis   2017-11-06   2017-11-06
>  SpeakerQuazie   2017-10-09   2014-04-21
>  Surveyor   o2017-05-08   2017-11-06
>  Tailor Alexis   2017-10-01   2017-10-12 Y
>  Treasuror  o2016-10-22   2017-09-21
> 
> >>>
> -
>  [1] Associate Director of Personnel
>  [2] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  [3] Interim offices are offices that are either vacant, or the holder
>  of the office was not elected to that office.
> 
>  REPORTS
> 
>  Office Monthly? ReportLast
>  PublishedLate[1]
> 
> >>>
> -
>  ADoP[2] Offices 2017-11-14
>  Agronomist  Farms 2017-11-07
>  Arbitor Judicial matters 2017-11-12
>  Herald YPatent titles 2017-10-27
>  Herald  Matters of Honour 2017-11-12
>  Notary  Contracts 2017-11-07
>  PromotorProposal pool 2017-11-12
>  Referee Rule violations 2017-11-13
>  Registrar   Players, Fora 2017-11-12
>  Registrar  YPlayer history 2017-10-31
>  Regkeepor   Regulations 2017-11-12
>  ReportorThe Agoran Newspaper 2017-11-12
>  Rulekeepor  Short Logical Ruleset 2017-11-11
>  Rulekeepor YFull Logical Ruleset 2017-10-22
>  SurveyorEstates 2017-11-07
>  Tailor YRibbons 2017-11-02
>  Treasuror   Shinies & FV[3] 2017-11-07
> 
> >>>
> -
>  [1] ! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods
> missed.
>  [2] Associate Director of Personnel
>  [3] Floating Value
> 
>  ELECTIONS
> 
>  Office Initiated   Phase  Candidates
> 
> >>>
> -
> 
> 
> >>>
> -
> >>>
> >>>
>

Re: DIS: GitHub request

[Aris Merchant]

It's a submodule, which makes it weird. Copying the other one isn't a bad idea.

-Aris

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:44 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
> Hm, I don't know how to include the header. I've tried to copy from the old
> repo, but I'm having trouble with that. I'm considering just getting rid of
> my new one and using the old one instead.
>
>
> On 11/14/2017 1:11 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>>
>> Yep, thanks.
>>
>> On 11/14/2017 1:02 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm presuming you're ATMunngit? If so, done.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 9:35 AM, ATMunn  wrote:

 I'd like to join the Agora GitHub group, so I can publish my ADoP
 reports on
 there.

Re: DIS: GitHub request

[ATMunn]

Hm, I don't know how to include the header. I've tried to copy from the old 
repo, but I'm having trouble with that. I'm considering just getting rid of my 
new one and using the old one instead.

On 11/14/2017 1:11 PM, ATMunn wrote:

Yep, thanks.

On 11/14/2017 1:02 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

I'm presuming you're ATMunngit? If so, done.

-Aris

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 9:35 AM, ATMunn  wrote:

I'd like to join the Agora GitHub group, so I can publish my ADoP reports on
there.

Re: DIS: GitHub request

[ATMunn]

Yep, thanks.

On 11/14/2017 1:02 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

I'm presuming you're ATMunngit? If so, done.

-Aris

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 9:35 AM, ATMunn  wrote:

I'd like to join the Agora GitHub group, so I can publish my ADoP reports on
there.

Re: DIS: GitHub request

[Aris Merchant]

I'm presuming you're ATMunngit? If so, done.

-Aris

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 9:35 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
> I'd like to join the Agora GitHub group, so I can publish my ADoP reports on
> there.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's my birthday!

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 09:25 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > As a counterpoint, if there's someone you feel has really served
> > as a mentor -- it's not always about the $$.  (IIRC it was originated
> > as a "mentorship" sort of badge).
> 
> That was back when different sorts of VCs were mostly interchangeable,
> though (and so there was no benefit between getting them that way, and
> getting them from, e.g., proposals or judging).

That's fair enough, but before *that*, in the Boons system, we specifically
called out the a "Mentorship" boon as a particular sort of reward to
encourage new players to seek mentors and older players to act as
mentors.  I always thought of the White ribbon as a continuation of
that and plenty have been awarded on that basis (the Rule of course 
offers no guidance either way).

DIS: GitHub request

[ATMunn]

I'd like to join the Agora GitHub group, so I can publish my ADoP reports on 
there.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's my birthday!

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 09:25 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> As a counterpoint, if there's someone you feel has really served
> as a mentor -- it's not always about the $$.  (IIRC it was originated
> as a "mentorship" sort of badge).

That was back when different sorts of VCs were mostly interchangeable,
though (and so there was no benefit between getting them that way, and
getting them from, e.g., proposals or judging).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's my birthday!

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 12:19 -0500, ATMunn wrote:
> > Makes sense. Another ribbon question: Any ideas on when I should give
> > a White Ribbon? It's probably better to not give one away unless I'm
> > absolutely sure that I want to give it to a certain person, right?
> > How long do people tend to go without giving a White Ribbon?
> 
> The ability to gift a White Ribbon has traditionally been a very
> valuable economic advantage, and has been traded for quite a lot on
> occasion.
> 
> I'd recommend waiting for the economy to be functional again before
> gifting yours, as you'll be likely to be able to get quite a lot in
> exchange.

As a counterpoint, if there's someone you feel has really served
as a mentor -- it's not always about the $$.  (IIRC it was originated
as a "mentorship" sort of badge).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's my birthday!

[ATMunn]

Alright. That makes sense. And actually, in order to get a White Ribbon, is the 
only qualification that you haven't earned one before, or do you have to be 
awarded one? I used to think it was the second option, but on closer 
inspection, it seems to be the first.

On 11/14/2017 12:22 PM, Alex Smith wrote:

On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 12:19 -0500, ATMunn wrote:

Makes sense. Another ribbon question: Any ideas on when I should give
a White Ribbon? It's probably better to not give one away unless I'm
absolutely sure that I want to give it to a certain person, right?
How long do people tend to go without giving a White Ribbon?


The ability to gift a White Ribbon has traditionally been a very
valuable economic advantage, and has been traded for quite a lot on
occasion.

I'd recommend waiting for the economy to be functional again before
gifting yours, as you'll be likely to be able to get quite a lot in
exchange.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's my birthday!

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 12:19 -0500, ATMunn wrote:
> Makes sense. Another ribbon question: Any ideas on when I should give
> a White Ribbon? It's probably better to not give one away unless I'm
> absolutely sure that I want to give it to a certain person, right?
> How long do people tend to go without giving a White Ribbon?

The ability to gift a White Ribbon has traditionally been a very
valuable economic advantage, and has been traded for quite a lot on
occasion.

I'd recommend waiting for the economy to be functional again before
gifting yours, as you'll be likely to be able to get quite a lot in
exchange.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's my birthday!

[ATMunn]

Makes sense. Another ribbon question: Any ideas on when I should give a White 
Ribbon? It's probably better to not give one away unless I'm absolutely sure 
that I want to give it to a certain person, right? How long do people tend to 
go without giving a White Ribbon?

On 11/14/2017 10:46 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:

I change my emotion to Joyous because today is my birthday.

Unrelated thing: I also claim a Blue Ribbon. (Is that actually valid, or is
there something I'm missing? The qualification seems a bit too easy, and I
feel like I have to be missing something.)


Not missing anything.  They're meant to range from very easy to very hard.

and happy birthday!

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

[Reuben Staley]

Probably because I wrote that on my phone, and my phone's mail app sucks
really bad.

--
Trigon

On Nov 14, 2017 7:56 AM, "ATMunn"  wrote:

> Your comments are a bit hard to distinguish from the original message.
>
> On 11/14/2017 2:26 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
>> This all is why it's a proto proposal. There are so many issues that you
>> don't realize as the author, so you never even think of the criticisms
>> others realize so quickly. Comments below.
>>
>> --
>> Trigon
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2017 12:05 AM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Title: "Putting Agora on a Map"
>>>
>>>
>> A broad rather than detail comment:
>>
>> It's a bit hard to see the use for the machinery here when there's
>> little way to connect it to the rest of the game (other than votes).
>> You say that "powers" are what you need ideas on, but that's the
>> meat of it - without knowing what powers you want to go for, it's
>> hard to see *why* it's useful to have a map and move around on it.
>> I'm concerned that building mechanism before purpose ends up being
>> like Agronomy - a lot of mechanism that doesn't get used.
>>
>>
>> Both Agronomy and the overarching Estates both failed because they didn't
>> have enough ties to the core gameplay. I think having a variety of types
>> of
>> structures that tie into the core gameplay in many ways would be the thing
>> that makes this mechanic relevant. Therefore, more powers would incite
>> more
>> interest in creating structures.
>>
>> That's not to say the idea of moving around on 2D space and marking
>>
>> territory is a bad mechanism, it just seems like setting a specific
>> goal would really help this (e.g. win condition coming from a certain
>> type of 2D competitive interaction, or a specified set of economic
>> growth or promotion of private trade).  Otherwise it's hard to know
>> if the gameplay creates good/interesting situations.
>>
>>
>> Idea: Wins by ownership, which are awarded when a player reaches a
>> specific
>> threshold of amount of land units owned. Wins by property size, where if
>> you have a jafit that is super big you win. Wins by variety, where if you
>> have a lot of different types of structures you win. There are lots of
>> wins
>> that could be implemented.
>>
>> As a detail note, we should really unify on AP *or* shinies.  Having
>> both around is a bit of a kludge and it would be good to pick just
>> one for basic action apportionment.
>>
>>
>> Good point. The two overlapping systems are quite inelegant.
>>
>>

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> The only problem I see with this right off the bat is that G. has already made
> a draft proposal dealing with land in a different way (see DIS: SimAgora
> 2000). These two proposals would probably

Yes I agree we should do one or the other not both.  I don't mind which
really, but as per my earlier comments I'd want to see more purpose and
goals on this one first.

Mine doesn't really have to be "land".  It's more a build/grind game
(like one where you lay cards face up, and then put additional powerup
cards on them, and your face-up then they produce something every turn
depending on what's on each stack).

Land metaphor entirely optional, the real point is to allow players to 
build stacks to specialize in different niches of an economy.

DIS: Re: BUS: It's my birthday!

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, ATMunn wrote:
> I change my emotion to Joyous because today is my birthday.
> 
> Unrelated thing: I also claim a Blue Ribbon. (Is that actually valid, or is
> there something I'm missing? The qualification seems a bit too easy, and I
> feel like I have to be missing something.)

Not missing anything.  They're meant to range from very easy to very hard.

and happy birthday!

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

[ATMunn]

That's a very interesting idea. It might make the game a bit too focused on 
traveling everywhere rather than doing stuff, though.

On 11/14/2017 6:22 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

What if you could only perform certain game actions in certain places
and you could only move certain distances. So, we would have a forum for
voting and proposing. A courthouse for CFJs and judging. An office
building for publishing reports. A bank for treasury. An auction house
for auction stuff.

On 11/14/2017 02:26 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:

This all is why it's a proto proposal. There are so many issues that you
don't realize as the author, so you never even think of the criticisms
others realize so quickly. Comments below.

--
Trigon

On Nov 14, 2017 12:05 AM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:



On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:

Title: "Putting Agora on a Map"


A broad rather than detail comment:

It's a bit hard to see the use for the machinery here when there's
little way to connect it to the rest of the game (other than votes).
You say that "powers" are what you need ideas on, but that's the
meat of it - without knowing what powers you want to go for, it's
hard to see *why* it's useful to have a map and move around on it.
I'm concerned that building mechanism before purpose ends up being
like Agronomy - a lot of mechanism that doesn't get used.


Both Agronomy and the overarching Estates both failed because they didn't
have enough ties to the core gameplay. I think having a variety of types of
structures that tie into the core gameplay in many ways would be the thing
that makes this mechanic relevant. Therefore, more powers would incite more
interest in creating structures.

That's not to say the idea of moving around on 2D space and marking

territory is a bad mechanism, it just seems like setting a specific
goal would really help this (e.g. win condition coming from a certain
type of 2D competitive interaction, or a specified set of economic
growth or promotion of private trade).  Otherwise it's hard to know
if the gameplay creates good/interesting situations.


Idea: Wins by ownership, which are awarded when a player reaches a specific
threshold of amount of land units owned. Wins by property size, where if
you have a jafit that is super big you win. Wins by variety, where if you
have a lot of different types of structures you win. There are lots of wins
that could be implemented.

As a detail note, we should really unify on AP *or* shinies.  Having
both around is a bit of a kludge and it would be good to pick just
one for basic action apportionment.


Good point. The two overlapping systems are quite inelegant.

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

[ATMunn]

Your comments are a bit hard to distinguish from the original message.

On 11/14/2017 2:26 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:

This all is why it's a proto proposal. There are so many issues that you
don't realize as the author, so you never even think of the criticisms
others realize so quickly. Comments below.

--
Trigon

On Nov 14, 2017 12:05 AM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:



On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:


Title: "Putting Agora on a Map"



A broad rather than detail comment:

It's a bit hard to see the use for the machinery here when there's
little way to connect it to the rest of the game (other than votes).
You say that "powers" are what you need ideas on, but that's the
meat of it - without knowing what powers you want to go for, it's
hard to see *why* it's useful to have a map and move around on it.
I'm concerned that building mechanism before purpose ends up being
like Agronomy - a lot of mechanism that doesn't get used.


Both Agronomy and the overarching Estates both failed because they didn't
have enough ties to the core gameplay. I think having a variety of types of
structures that tie into the core gameplay in many ways would be the thing
that makes this mechanic relevant. Therefore, more powers would incite more
interest in creating structures.

That's not to say the idea of moving around on 2D space and marking

territory is a bad mechanism, it just seems like setting a specific
goal would really help this (e.g. win condition coming from a certain
type of 2D competitive interaction, or a specified set of economic
growth or promotion of private trade).  Otherwise it's hard to know
if the gameplay creates good/interesting situations.


Idea: Wins by ownership, which are awarded when a player reaches a specific
threshold of amount of land units owned. Wins by property size, where if
you have a jafit that is super big you win. Wins by variety, where if you
have a lot of different types of structures you win. There are lots of wins
that could be implemented.

As a detail note, we should really unify on AP *or* shinies.  Having
both around is a bit of a kludge and it would be good to pick just
one for basic action apportionment.


Good point. The two overlapping systems are quite inelegant.

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

[ATMunn]

I haven't read through this entire thing yet, but I will, leaving comments as I 
go. I haven't looked at anyone else's comments yet either, so forgive me if I 
cover something someone else has already mentioned.

The only problem I see with this right off the bat is that G. has already made 
a draft proposal dealing with land in a different way (see DIS: SimAgora 2000). 
These two proposals would probably

On 11/14/2017 12:17 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:

I'm done with a very, very rough draft of this proposal. Tell me how you all 
think it looks.

=

Title: "Putting Agora on a Map"
AI: 2
Author: Trigon
Co-Authors:

The square brackets are not proposal text and all that jazz.

[ PART I: Removing and Changing Stuff ]

Repeal rules 2488, 2489, 2490, and 2491.

[ I honestly tried to keep the estates, but these changes are so radical
   that it wouldn't be compatible. ]

Amend rule 2500 by replacing "2" with "6".

Replace all instances of "1 Action Point" with "3 Action Points" in the
order they appear.

In a specific rule, or in all rules? If it's in a specific rule, you should 
specify that rule; if it's all rules, I believe you still need to specify all 
rules it appears in (that may not be true, however)


[ Unlike most reforms, I want to keep AP around, mostly because the 2003
   version had "Action Units" which were a similar concept. I reworked it
   though, so here you go. ]

[PART II: Making Land]

Re-enact rule 1993/1 (Power=2) "The Land of Arcadia" with the text:

   Arcadia is a land entirely defined by the Arcadian Map (the Map).
   The Map is a record kept by the Office of the Cartographor.

Just saying it is "a record" seems a bit broad. I don't know how you would make 
that more specific without being over-complicated, though.


   The Map divides Arcadia into a finite, discrete number of Units of
   Land, or simply Land. Each Unit of Land is an indestructible asset
   specified by a pair of integers known as its Latitude and
   Longitude.

   Every unique pair of integers within the limits defined in the
   Rules for Latitude and Longitude signifies an existent Unit of
   Land. No other Units of Land exist. Units of Land SHALL only be
   created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and
   Longitude defined in the Rules.

Not sure SHALL is what you want here, maybe "can only be ... Any other way is 
INEFFECTIVE"?


   All values for Latitude and Longitude MUST lie between -9 and +9,
   inclusive.

   The Total Land Area of Arcadia is the number of existent Units of
   Land defined by permissible Latitude and Longitude pairs.

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.

   Changes in Land ownership are secured, unless:

   1. The Land Unit is Public, and the transfer is specifically
  permitted by the rules;

   2. The Land Unit is Communal, and the transfer is specifically
  permitted by the Contract that owns it;

   3. The Land Unit is Private, and the entity that owns it announces
  the transfer.

Re-enact rule 1995/0 (Power=2) "Land Types" with the text:

   Each Unit of Land SHALL have a single Land Type. Changes to Land
   Type are secured.

Again, don't think you want SHALL here. That makes it possible but ILLEGAL for it to have 
more than one Land Type. I think "Each Unit of Land has a single Land Type" 
works just fine.


   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 Private or Public 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.> 
Re-enact rule 1996/3 (Power=1), renaming it to "The Cartographor" with

the 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

[ATMunn]

Judgment is actually spelled correctly in rule 991. I believe both spellings are actually correct; 
however "judgment" seems to be preferred. However, the name of the rule does use 
"Judgement," so it might still be good to do what you did to keep things consistent.

On 11/14/2017 2:25 AM, VJ Rada wrote:

Uh, copy and paste error. I retract the proposal below, and create the
following.

Title: Really minor fixes
AI: 3?
Text
Amend rule 2415 "Badges" by replacing the text "multiple persons for
participating in specific event" with "multiple persons for
participating in a specific event".

Amend rule 2492 "Recusal" by adding a full stop after the text "1 -
The CFJ becomes unassigned"

Amend rule 2502 "Agoraculture" by adding a full stop after the text "
When an Estate is transferred to Agora or to an Organization, its Farm
switch is set to "unfarmed" immediately afterwards"

Amend rule 1727 "Happy Birthday" by replacing the semicolon in "forego
such a noble pursuit;" with a comma. (This change is made because the
rest of the rule uses commas between paragraphs).

Amend rule 2464 "Tournaments" by, in the text "A Tournament is
governed by a special temporary title of the ACORN, created in
accordance with its parent rule, which have binding control",
replacing "have" with "has". (_A_ special title of the ACORN _has_
binding control).

Amend rule 2446 "The Reportor" by adding a full stop after the text
"The Reportor's reports are still subject to the requirements of rule
2143".

Amend rule 2450 "Pledges" by, in the text "To "call in" a pledge" is",
removing the third quotation mark.

Amend rule 2525 "Interpreting Contracts" by replacing the text " A
contract CANNOT punish a
player for performing or failing protected action" with "A contract
CANNOT punish a player for performing or failing to perform a
protected action"

Amend rule 2522 "Contract Lifecycle" by replacing the text "(where Y
is the amendment limit limit)" with "(where Y is the amendment
limit)".

Amend rule 2523 "Contracts as Agreements" by replacing the text "as a
mitigating or aggravating circumstances when awarding a card."
with the text "as a mitigating or aggravating circumstance when issuing a card"

Amend rule 869 "How to Join and Leave Agora" by replacing the text
"any agreementwithout" with "any agreement without"

Amend rule 2479 "Official Justice" by adding full stops after both of
the following sentences
"Summary Judgement is imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not
in response to any official proceeding"
and
"The Referee CANNOT impose Summary Judgement more than three time a week"

Amend rule 2531 "Referee Accountability" by adding a full stop after
the text "the ADoP SHALL initiate an election for the Referee within a
timely fashion"

Amend rule 683 "Voting on Agoran Decisions" by replacing the
penultimate instance of "valid" with "invalid".

Amend rule 2474 "Green Cards" by replacing the text "minor,
accidental, and/or inconsequential infraction" with the text
"minor, accidental, and/or inconsequential infractions".

Also amend rule 2474 by replacing the word "'Tis" with "It is".

Amend rule 2124 "Agoran Satisfaction" by replacing the text "4. if the
action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice." with "4. the
action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice"

Amend rule 991 "Calls for Judgement", by replacing all instances of
the word "Judgment" with "Judgement".

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 6:24 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

I create the following

Title: Really minor fixes
AI: 3?
Text
Amend rule 2415 "Badges" by replacing the text "multiple persons for
participating in specific event" with "multiple persons for
participating in a specific event".

Amend rule 2492 "Recusal" by adding a full stop after the text "1 -
The CFJ becomes unassigned"

Amend rule 2502 "Agoraculture" by adding a full stop after the text "
When an Estate is transferred to Agora or to an Organization, its Farm
switch is set to "unfarmed" immediately afterwards"

Amend rule 1727 "Happy Birthday" by replacing the semicolon in "forego
such a noble pursuit;" with a comma. (This change is made because the
rest of the rule uses commas between paragraphs).

Amend rule 2464 "Tournaments" by, in the text "A Tournament is
governed by a special temporary title of the ACORN, created in
accordance with its parent rule, which have binding control",
replacing "have" with "has". (_A_ special title of the ACORN _has_
binding control).

Amend rule 2446 "The Reportor" by adding a full stop after the text
"The Reportor's reports are still subject to the requirements of rule
2143".

Amend rule 2450 "Pledges" by, in the text "To "call in" a pledge" is",
removing the third quotation mark.

Amend rule 2525 "Interpreting Contracts" by replacing the text " A
contract CANNOT punish a
player for performing or failing protected action" with "A contract
CANNOT punish a player for performing or failing to perform a
protected action"

Amend rule 2522 "Contract 

DIS: Re: BUS: Test

[Cuddle Beam]

what is it supposed to say?

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:34 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:

>  __ __  __ __ __   __ __ __ __
> /\  ___\   /\ \_\ \   /\ \   /\ "-.\ \   /\ \   /\  ___\   /\  ___\
> \ \___  \  \ \  __ \  \ \ \  \ \ \-.  \  \ \ \  \ \  __\   \ \___  \
>  \/\_\  \ \_\ \_\  \ \_\  \ \_\\"\_\  \ \_\  \ \_\  \/\_\
>   \/_/   \/_/\/_/   \/_/   \/_/ \/_/   \/_/   \/_/   \/_/
>
>  __ __ ____   __  __ __ __
> /\  ___\   /\  ___\   /\ \  /\__  _\ /\ \_\ \   /\ \   /\  ___\
> \ \ \  \ \  __\  _\_\ \ \/_/\ \/ \ \  __ \  \ \ \  \ \___  \
>  \ \_\  \ \_\   /\_\   \ \_\  \ \_\ \_\  \ \_\  \/\_\
>   \/_/   \/_/   \/_/\/_/   \/_/\/_/   \/_/   \/_/
>
>  __ ______ __ __
> /\ \   /\  ___\  /\  __ \  /\  ___\   /\  ___\   /\ \
> \ \ \  \ \___  \ \ \  __ \ \ \ \  \ \  __\  _\_\ \
>  \ \_\  \/\_\ \ \_\ \_\ \ \_\  \ \_\   /\_\
>   \/_/   \/_/  \/_/\/_/  \/_/   \/_/   \/_/
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

What if you could only perform certain game actions in certain places
and you could only move certain distances. So, we would have a forum for
voting and proposing. A courthouse for CFJs and judging. An office
building for publishing reports. A bank for treasury. An auction house
for auction stuff.

On 11/14/2017 02:26 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> This all is why it's a proto proposal. There are so many issues that you
> don't realize as the author, so you never even think of the criticisms
> others realize so quickly. Comments below.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Nov 14, 2017 12:05 AM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
>> Title: "Putting Agora on a Map"
>>
> A broad rather than detail comment:
>
> It's a bit hard to see the use for the machinery here when there's
> little way to connect it to the rest of the game (other than votes).
> You say that "powers" are what you need ideas on, but that's the
> meat of it - without knowing what powers you want to go for, it's
> hard to see *why* it's useful to have a map and move around on it.
> I'm concerned that building mechanism before purpose ends up being
> like Agronomy - a lot of mechanism that doesn't get used.
>
>
> Both Agronomy and the overarching Estates both failed because they didn't
> have enough ties to the core gameplay. I think having a variety of types of
> structures that tie into the core gameplay in many ways would be the thing
> that makes this mechanic relevant. Therefore, more powers would incite more
> interest in creating structures.
>
> That's not to say the idea of moving around on 2D space and marking
>
> territory is a bad mechanism, it just seems like setting a specific
> goal would really help this (e.g. win condition coming from a certain
> type of 2D competitive interaction, or a specified set of economic
> growth or promotion of private trade).  Otherwise it's hard to know
> if the gameplay creates good/interesting situations.
>
>
> Idea: Wins by ownership, which are awarded when a player reaches a specific
> threshold of amount of land units owned. Wins by property size, where if
> you have a jafit that is super big you win. Wins by variety, where if you
> have a lot of different types of structures you win. There are lots of wins
> that could be implemented.
>
> As a detail note, we should really unify on AP *or* shinies.  Having
> both around is a bit of a kludge and it would be good to pick just
> one for basic action apportionment.
>
>
> Good point. The two overlapping systems are quite inelegant.

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature