Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 15:39 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
>   The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the
>   possible values of a set containing any number of players. A
>   player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that
>   player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any
>   such players.

This isn't a switch. It's just a value. (The difference is that
switches are persistent – you can change them independent of the rest
of the gamestate – whereas this is more the sort of thing you calculate
instantaneously.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough
compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus:

Title: Raising the stakes for zombies
AI: 2
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:

Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text:

 The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the
 possible values of a set containing any number of players. A
 player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that
 player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any
 such players.

 For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player
 who in in either eir zombie network or a zombie network e is in."

 For every player, the term "unbound player" is equivalent to
 "player who is not in eir zombie network or any zombie network e
 is in."


I don't see why this should be a switch given that it's entirely 
calculated and thus cannot be flipped.


Also, this is simply graph theory:

{{{
The zombie graph is the mathematical graph whose vertices are the players, 
and where there's an edge between two players iff at least one of them has 
the other set as their master switch.


For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player who is 
in the same connected component of the zombie graph", and "unbound player" 
a player who is not.

}}}


Create a new rule, power 2, "Scary Public Actions" with text:

 When a rule calls for an entity to perform a Scary Public Action,
 that entity SHALL do one of the following:

 1. transfer 12 coins, 7 apples, and 4 papers to one or more
unbound players;
 2. transfer two land units e owns to one or more unbound players;
 3. build a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit;
 4. increase the rank of a facility on a public, unpreserved land
unit by at least 1;
 5. pend 3 proposals submitted by unbound players;
 6. destroy 10 or more apples (or equivalent) specifically in
actions that change the land type of land units from aether.


Corona complained that 1 and 2 are expensive. I'd instead point out that 
those two options easily allow two zombie owners to collude to make 
transfers to get off entirely free, while the other options can allow them 
to benefit only each other.


And also, that none of these options deserve the epithet "Scary".

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

[Reuben Staley]

The intent of the first two were to be a last resort, in case you forget to
pay all the zombies' scare debt. They're supposed to be unbalanced.

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 16:49 Corona  wrote:

> Options 1 and 2 seem very expensive compared to the rest, and they can't
> possibly benefit the giving player, unlike the others, which can,
> indirectly.
>
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
>
> > I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough
> > compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus:
> >
> > Title: Raising the stakes for zombies
> > AI: 2
> > Author: Trigon
> > Co-authors:
> >
> > Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text:
> >
> >   The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the
> >   possible values of a set containing any number of players. A
> >   player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that
> >   player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any
> >   such players.
> >
> >   For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player
> >   who in in either eir zombie network or a zombie network e is in."
> >
> >   For every player, the term "unbound player" is equivalent to
> >   "player who is not in eir zombie network or any zombie network e
> >   is in."
> >
> > Create a new rule, power 2, "Scary Public Actions" with text:
> >
> >   When a rule calls for an entity to perform a Scary Public Action,
> >   that entity SHALL do one of the following:
> >
> >   1. transfer 12 coins, 7 apples, and 4 papers to one or more
> >  unbound players;
> >   2. transfer two land units e owns to one or more unbound players;
> >   3. build a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit;
> >   4. increase the rank of a facility on a public, unpreserved land
> >  unit by at least 1;
> >   5. pend 3 proposals submitted by unbound players;
> >   6. destroy 10 or more apples (or equivalent) specifically in
> >  actions that change the land type of land units from aether.
> >
>

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

[Ørjan Johansen]

Nice, but I'd think my point about collusion was the most important...

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


Oh, you want comments on the graph theory part? In that case: that's a nice
way to quantify it and I'll use that in the next revision.

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:26 Ørjan Johansen  wrote:


That wasn't really my most important point.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


Listen, Agoran language is confusing and has a long history. Since I've

now

gotten two complaints about switches, I'll get rid of that part next

time.

Just shush.

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:10 Ørjan Johansen  wrote:


On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough
compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus:

Title: Raising the stakes for zombies
AI: 2
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:

Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text:

 The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the
 possible values of a set containing any number of players. A
 player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that
 player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any
 such players.

 For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player
 who in in either eir zombie network or a zombie network e is in."

 For every player, the term "unbound player" is equivalent to
 "player who is not in eir zombie network or any zombie network e
 is in."


I don't see why this should be a switch given that it's entirely
calculated and thus cannot be flipped.

Also, this is simply graph theory:

{{{
The zombie graph is the mathematical graph whose vertices are the

players,

and where there's an edge between two players iff at least one of them

has

the other set as their master switch.

For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player who

is

in the same connected component of the zombie graph", and "unbound

player"

a player who is not.
}}}


Create a new rule, power 2, "Scary Public Actions" with text:

 When a rule calls for an entity to perform a Scary Public Action,
 that entity SHALL do one of the following:

 1. transfer 12 coins, 7 apples, and 4 papers to one or more
unbound players;
 2. transfer two land units e owns to one or more unbound players;
 3. build a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit;
 4. increase the rank of a facility on a public, unpreserved land
unit by at least 1;
 5. pend 3 proposals submitted by unbound players;
 6. destroy 10 or more apples (or equivalent) specifically in
actions that change the land type of land units from aether.


Corona complained that 1 and 2 are expensive. I'd instead point out that
those two options easily allow two zombie owners to collude to make
transfers to get off entirely free, while the other options can allow

them

to benefit only each other.

And also, that none of these options deserve the epithet "Scary".

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: maybe only somewhat scary

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 18:31 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> For full clarity, the body of text below, that has the label
> "TALES OF THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE", begins with the B in "Boo",
> ends with "Ribbon.", and has two line breaks as shown.  
> 
> 
> TALES OF THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE
> Boo!  Did we zombies scare you, Agora?  Anyone who voted FOR the
> proposal decision that gave this body of text power hereby earns a
> Black Ribbon.
> --
> 
> [
> If someone who voted FOR Proposal 8035 could confirm that the text
> has the following sha-512 hash it would be appreciated:
>40ae885e13bb285c25cc19aba4d5d73bf98908781a800a2a389925aa7eb3ad49
>17aee5e4cfa14fd615193fa1fe2ba3d15fc246c98fb13f159034ae135beafbdf
> ]

I had at least one counterscam lined up against this but don't have the
heart to use it. An effective "Clout win" deserves at least a Black
Ribbon (and it wouldn't be unreasonable to get a win from it outright).

Anyway, as a neutral party here:

$ sha512sum /tmp/zombie.txt
40ae885e13bb285c25cc19aba4d5d73bf98908781a800a2a389925aa7eb3ad4917aee5e
4cfa14fd615193fa1fe2ba3d15fc246c98fb13f159034ae135beafbdf  /tmp/zombie.
txt

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

[Corona]

Options 1 and 2 seem very expensive compared to the rest, and they can't
possibly benefit the giving player, unlike the others, which can,
indirectly.


~Corona

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 11:39 PM, Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough
> compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus:
>
> Title: Raising the stakes for zombies
> AI: 2
> Author: Trigon
> Co-authors:
>
> Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text:
>
>   The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the
>   possible values of a set containing any number of players. A
>   player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that
>   player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any
>   such players.
>
>   For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player
>   who in in either eir zombie network or a zombie network e is in."
>
>   For every player, the term "unbound player" is equivalent to
>   "player who is not in eir zombie network or any zombie network e
>   is in."
>
> Create a new rule, power 2, "Scary Public Actions" with text:
>
>   When a rule calls for an entity to perform a Scary Public Action,
>   that entity SHALL do one of the following:
>
>   1. transfer 12 coins, 7 apples, and 4 papers to one or more
>  unbound players;
>   2. transfer two land units e owns to one or more unbound players;
>   3. build a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit;
>   4. increase the rank of a facility on a public, unpreserved land
>  unit by at least 1;
>   5. pend 3 proposals submitted by unbound players;
>   6. destroy 10 or more apples (or equivalent) specifically in
>  actions that change the land type of land units from aether.
>

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

[Ørjan Johansen]

That wasn't really my most important point.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


Listen, Agoran language is confusing and has a long history. Since I've now
gotten two complaints about switches, I'll get rid of that part next time.
Just shush.

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:10 Ørjan Johansen  wrote:


On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough
compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus:

Title: Raising the stakes for zombies
AI: 2
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:

Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text:

 The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the
 possible values of a set containing any number of players. A
 player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that
 player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any
 such players.

 For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player
 who in in either eir zombie network or a zombie network e is in."

 For every player, the term "unbound player" is equivalent to
 "player who is not in eir zombie network or any zombie network e
 is in."


I don't see why this should be a switch given that it's entirely
calculated and thus cannot be flipped.

Also, this is simply graph theory:

{{{
The zombie graph is the mathematical graph whose vertices are the players,
and where there's an edge between two players iff at least one of them has
the other set as their master switch.

For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player who is
in the same connected component of the zombie graph", and "unbound player"
a player who is not.
}}}


Create a new rule, power 2, "Scary Public Actions" with text:

 When a rule calls for an entity to perform a Scary Public Action,
 that entity SHALL do one of the following:

 1. transfer 12 coins, 7 apples, and 4 papers to one or more
unbound players;
 2. transfer two land units e owns to one or more unbound players;
 3. build a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit;
 4. increase the rank of a facility on a public, unpreserved land
unit by at least 1;
 5. pend 3 proposals submitted by unbound players;
 6. destroy 10 or more apples (or equivalent) specifically in
actions that change the land type of land units from aether.


Corona complained that 1 and 2 are expensive. I'd instead point out that
those two options easily allow two zombie owners to collude to make
transfers to get off entirely free, while the other options can allow them
to benefit only each other.

And also, that none of these options deserve the epithet "Scary".

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

[Reuben Staley]

Oh wait, I see the part that you were talking about. I didn't notice the
bottom section. I apologize.

Re: options 1 and 2: I already stated that they're supposed to be expensive
in order to incentivize putting thought into your actions. The first one
makes that zombie unprofitable for the month while the second one is an
entire land unit which is basically a ton of wasted potential. Perhaps it's
me being protective of my ideas, but I really think it's important to have
the option in case you forget to do a public action and want to keep the
zombie. But it is indeed easily scammable. I could just say that you need
to transfer it to Agora, which fixes the problem of scamming. That's
probably the best and least complicated option other than outright
deletion. But for option 1, those don't get refunded back into the Agoran
economy, which what I wanted to happen. For option 2, definitely, but I'm
still reserved about option 1. I guess everyone should just give me
feedback.

Re: not scary: it might not be scary but I wanted to keep the fantastic Boo
Lien pun :D

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:43 Reuben Staley  wrote:

> Oh, you want comments on the graph theory part? In that case: that's a
> nice way to quantify it and I'll use that in the next revision.
>
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:26 Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>
>> That wasn't really my most important point.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>>
>> > Listen, Agoran language is confusing and has a long history. Since I've
>> now
>> > gotten two complaints about switches, I'll get rid of that part next
>> time.
>> > Just shush.
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:10 Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough
>> >>> compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus:
>> >>>
>> >>> Title: Raising the stakes for zombies
>> >>> AI: 2
>> >>> Author: Trigon
>> >>> Co-authors:
>> >>>
>> >>> Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text:
>> >>>
>> >>>  The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the
>> >>>  possible values of a set containing any number of players. A
>> >>>  player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that
>> >>>  player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any
>> >>>  such players.
>> >>>
>> >>>  For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to
>> "player
>> >>>  who in in either eir zombie network or a zombie network e is in."
>> >>>
>> >>>  For every player, the term "unbound player" is equivalent to
>> >>>  "player who is not in eir zombie network or any zombie network e
>> >>>  is in."
>> >>
>> >> I don't see why this should be a switch given that it's entirely
>> >> calculated and thus cannot be flipped.
>> >>
>> >> Also, this is simply graph theory:
>> >>
>> >> {{{
>> >> The zombie graph is the mathematical graph whose vertices are the
>> players,
>> >> and where there's an edge between two players iff at least one of them
>> has
>> >> the other set as their master switch.
>> >>
>> >> For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player who
>> is
>> >> in the same connected component of the zombie graph", and "unbound
>> player"
>> >> a player who is not.
>> >> }}}
>> >>
>> >>> Create a new rule, power 2, "Scary Public Actions" with text:
>> >>>
>> >>>  When a rule calls for an entity to perform a Scary Public Action,
>> >>>  that entity SHALL do one of the following:
>> >>>
>> >>>  1. transfer 12 coins, 7 apples, and 4 papers to one or more
>> >>> unbound players;
>> >>>  2. transfer two land units e owns to one or more unbound players;
>> >>>  3. build a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit;
>> >>>  4. increase the rank of a facility on a public, unpreserved land
>> >>> unit by at least 1;
>> >>>  5. pend 3 proposals submitted by unbound players;
>> >>>  6. destroy 10 or more apples (or equivalent) specifically in
>> >>> actions that change the land type of land units from aether.
>> >>
>> >> Corona complained that 1 and 2 are expensive. I'd instead point out
>> that
>> >> those two options easily allow two zombie owners to collude to make
>> >> transfers to get off entirely free, while the other options can allow
>> them
>> >> to benefit only each other.
>> >>
>> >> And also, that none of these options deserve the epithet "Scary".
>> >>
>> >> Greetings,
>> >> Ørjan.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

[Reuben Staley]

Listen, Agoran language is confusing and has a long history. Since I've now
gotten two complaints about switches, I'll get rid of that part next time.
Just shush.

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:10 Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> > I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough
> > compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus:
> >
> > Title: Raising the stakes for zombies
> > AI: 2
> > Author: Trigon
> > Co-authors:
> >
> > Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text:
> >
> >  The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the
> >  possible values of a set containing any number of players. A
> >  player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that
> >  player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any
> >  such players.
> >
> >  For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player
> >  who in in either eir zombie network or a zombie network e is in."
> >
> >  For every player, the term "unbound player" is equivalent to
> >  "player who is not in eir zombie network or any zombie network e
> >  is in."
>
> I don't see why this should be a switch given that it's entirely
> calculated and thus cannot be flipped.
>
> Also, this is simply graph theory:
>
> {{{
> The zombie graph is the mathematical graph whose vertices are the players,
> and where there's an edge between two players iff at least one of them has
> the other set as their master switch.
>
> For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player who is
> in the same connected component of the zombie graph", and "unbound player"
> a player who is not.
> }}}
>
> > Create a new rule, power 2, "Scary Public Actions" with text:
> >
> >  When a rule calls for an entity to perform a Scary Public Action,
> >  that entity SHALL do one of the following:
> >
> >  1. transfer 12 coins, 7 apples, and 4 papers to one or more
> > unbound players;
> >  2. transfer two land units e owns to one or more unbound players;
> >  3. build a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit;
> >  4. increase the rank of a facility on a public, unpreserved land
> > unit by at least 1;
> >  5. pend 3 proposals submitted by unbound players;
> >  6. destroy 10 or more apples (or equivalent) specifically in
> > actions that change the land type of land units from aether.
>
> Corona complained that 1 and 2 are expensive. I'd instead point out that
> those two options easily allow two zombie owners to collude to make
> transfers to get off entirely free, while the other options can allow them
> to benefit only each other.
>
> And also, that none of these options deserve the epithet "Scary".
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

[Reuben Staley]

Oh, you want comments on the graph theory part? In that case: that's a nice
way to quantify it and I'll use that in the next revision.

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:26 Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> That wasn't really my most important point.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> > Listen, Agoran language is confusing and has a long history. Since I've
> now
> > gotten two complaints about switches, I'll get rid of that part next
> time.
> > Just shush.
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 18:10 Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >>
> >>> I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough
> >>> compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus:
> >>>
> >>> Title: Raising the stakes for zombies
> >>> AI: 2
> >>> Author: Trigon
> >>> Co-authors:
> >>>
> >>> Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text:
> >>>
> >>>  The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the
> >>>  possible values of a set containing any number of players. A
> >>>  player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that
> >>>  player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any
> >>>  such players.
> >>>
> >>>  For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player
> >>>  who in in either eir zombie network or a zombie network e is in."
> >>>
> >>>  For every player, the term "unbound player" is equivalent to
> >>>  "player who is not in eir zombie network or any zombie network e
> >>>  is in."
> >>
> >> I don't see why this should be a switch given that it's entirely
> >> calculated and thus cannot be flipped.
> >>
> >> Also, this is simply graph theory:
> >>
> >> {{{
> >> The zombie graph is the mathematical graph whose vertices are the
> players,
> >> and where there's an edge between two players iff at least one of them
> has
> >> the other set as their master switch.
> >>
> >> For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player who
> is
> >> in the same connected component of the zombie graph", and "unbound
> player"
> >> a player who is not.
> >> }}}
> >>
> >>> Create a new rule, power 2, "Scary Public Actions" with text:
> >>>
> >>>  When a rule calls for an entity to perform a Scary Public Action,
> >>>  that entity SHALL do one of the following:
> >>>
> >>>  1. transfer 12 coins, 7 apples, and 4 papers to one or more
> >>> unbound players;
> >>>  2. transfer two land units e owns to one or more unbound players;
> >>>  3. build a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit;
> >>>  4. increase the rank of a facility on a public, unpreserved land
> >>> unit by at least 1;
> >>>  5. pend 3 proposals submitted by unbound players;
> >>>  6. destroy 10 or more apples (or equivalent) specifically in
> >>> actions that change the land type of land units from aether.
> >>
> >> Corona complained that 1 and 2 are expensive. I'd instead point out that
> >> those two options easily allow two zombie owners to collude to make
> >> transfers to get off entirely free, while the other options can allow
> them
> >> to benefit only each other.
> >>
> >> And also, that none of these options deserve the epithet "Scary".
> >>
> >> Greetings,
> >> Ørjan.
> >>
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: maybe only somewhat scary

[Aris Merchant]

On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 6:41 PM Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Sat, 2018-04-21 at 18:31 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > For full clarity, the body of text below, that has the label
> > "TALES OF THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE", begins with the B in "Boo",
> > ends with "Ribbon.", and has two line breaks as shown.
> >
> >
> > TALES OF THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE
> > Boo!  Did we zombies scare you, Agora?  Anyone who voted FOR the
> > proposal decision that gave this body of text power hereby earns a
> > Black Ribbon.
> > --
> >
> > [
> > If someone who voted FOR Proposal 8035 could confirm that the text
> > has the following sha-512 hash it would be appreciated:
> >40ae885e13bb285c25cc19aba4d5d73bf98908781a800a2a389925aa7eb3ad49
> >17aee5e4cfa14fd615193fa1fe2ba3d15fc246c98fb13f159034ae135beafbdf
> > ]
>
> I had at least one counterscam lined up against this but don't have the
> heart to use it. An effective "Clout win" deserves at least a Black
> Ribbon (and it wouldn't be unreasonable to get a win from it outright).


Agreed. I was about read to call for a motion of no confidence, but this is
eminently reasonable. I think it's clear that zombies need to be
substantially weakened, however.

-Aris

>

DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

[Reuben Staley]

I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough
compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus:

Title: Raising the stakes for zombies
AI: 2
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:

Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text:

  The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the
  possible values of a set containing any number of players. A
  player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that
  player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any
  such players.

  For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player
  who in in either eir zombie network or a zombie network e is in."

  For every player, the term "unbound player" is equivalent to
  "player who is not in eir zombie network or any zombie network e
  is in."

Create a new rule, power 2, "Scary Public Actions" with text:

  When a rule calls for an entity to perform a Scary Public Action,
  that entity SHALL do one of the following:

  1. transfer 12 coins, 7 apples, and 4 papers to one or more
 unbound players;
  2. transfer two land units e owns to one or more unbound players;
  3. build a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit;
  4. increase the rank of a facility on a public, unpreserved land
 unit by at least 1;
  5. pend 3 proposals submitted by unbound players;
  6. destroy 10 or more apples (or equivalent) specifically in
 actions that change the land type of land units from aether.