I transfer a prop from myself to BobTHJ because I really like his
Proposal Review Board idea, and I've stolen parts of it for this
proto:
{
Create a proto pool. Only disinterested proposals can be submitted
directly to the proposal pool; all others must first be submitted to
the proto pool.
I submit the following two protos. The first is intended to be adopted
in Agora, the other in B. Comments welcome.
{
It's Greek to Me
AI = 1, II = 1
Adopt a new power 1 Rule:
{{
Kolios is a type of asset and a currency, tracked by the Accountor.
A player CAN destroy a Note to create 5
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Charles
Walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
My hope is that this solves the problems of large, cluttered
distributions and badly written proposals.
Add a penalty for authoring proposals that are rejected to the current
distributability system and the
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 09:36 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Undistributable by spending
3 Notes, or without Objection. A player CAN flip a specified proposal
they authored to Undistributable by announcement.
Should say e authored here. Singular they is
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 10:47 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Charles
Walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
My hope is that this solves the problems of large, cluttered
distributions and badly written proposals.
Add a penalty for authoring proposals that
c-walker wrote:
A player CAN flip a specified proposal to Undistributable by spending 3
Notes, or without Objection. A player CAN flip a specified proposal they
authored to Undistributable by announcement.
without non-author objection
c-walker wrote:
I submit the following two protos. The first is intended to be adopted
in Agora, the other in B. Comments welcome.
I recommend re-enacting the export rule and using it, to prevent
ambiguity in B's gamestate from creating ambiguity in Agora's
(though Agora is largely protected
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Alex Smithais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 10:47 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
Add a penalty for authoring proposals that are rejected to the current
distributability system and the problem goes away without an extra
layer of bureaucracy.
What
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Walker wrote:
I was just trying to keep the Janitor in work, honest.
I submit the following proposal and intend to make it Distributable
without objection:
Again, I object. -G.
I feel
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Charles
Walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Walker wrote:
I was just trying to keep the Janitor in work, honest.
I submit the following proposal
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't
the point of the game to have arbitrary proposals? As it is, the
number of proposals (including good proposals) will drop. I know I
won't be submitting as many.
The point of the game is that the rules can
Make all your proprosals ii-3, it's not like it affects voting ;)
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 13, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Walker wrote:
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 15:17 -0400, comex wrote:
Make all your proprosals ii-3, it's not like it affects voting ;)
Proposals have been rejected for having IIs too high before now.
--
ais523
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
Isn't
the point of the game to have arbitrary proposals? As it is, the
number of proposals (including good proposals) will drop. I know I
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 14:43 -0500, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
I don't think Agora would be much of a game if its rules were only
amended 27 times in 230 years.
Sounds like the FRC! (Ordinance change proposals have been voted against
there solely for the reason that the rules had been changed a few
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Alex Smithais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
You cannot for
sure determine which side of a coin is which.
I award 4 x-points to Rodlen for a correct answer. Eir answer involved
feeling for heads and tails, which is against the spirit of the puzzle,
but nevertheless
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 17:59 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Alex Smithais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
You cannot for
sure determine which side of a coin is which.
I award 4 x-points to Rodlen for a correct answer. Eir answer involved
feeling for heads and tails,
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Alex Smithais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:
Ah, misread that. There is a loophole here, if you like; which is that
you can determine with a high certainty even if you can't determine for
sure.
Back when Murphy was contestmaster e implied a frictionless cake
cutting
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Charles Walker wrote:
Again, I object. -G.
I feel this is grossly unfair. I am a new player with very few notes
and intend to gain most my Notes/ new currency of them through
proposals. If I have to pay to get them distributed, then this becomes
almost impossible for
All right, I'm incorporating suggestions into the next full cards draft.
Meanwhile, please comment on the following outline/proto for card types
and gameplay balance (relative frequency etc.). Also suggest other card
types, but I'm not inclined to have # of types explode in first
Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Charles
Walkercharles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote:
I submit the following proposal and intend to make it Distributable
without objection:
I agree to the following:
{{
This is a public contract governed by the rules of Agora and a
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
All right, I'm incorporating suggestions into the next full cards draft.
Meanwhile, please comment on the following outline/proto for card types
and gameplay balance (relative frequency etc.). Also suggest other card
Kerim Aydin wrote:
1. Cards are dealt from an infinite deck (with set probabilities) and
destroyed when played. Reason: the reason cards broke so often in the
past version was because with a finite deck, everyone's play stopped
every time there was controversy about where even a single
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, comex wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
All right, I'm incorporating suggestions into the next full cards draft.
Meanwhile, please comment on the following outline/proto for card types
and gameplay balance (relative frequency
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
1. Cards are dealt from an infinite deck (with set probabilities) and
destroyed when played. Reason: the reason cards broke so often in the
past version was because with a finite deck, everyone's play stopped
every time there
Getting lots of cards in while making them come up often enough is a challenge
(already had to go to out of 1000 in last proto-proto). What do you all
think of the following outline for specialization (basic trading-card game
mechanic here):
1. There are N defined Decks (Suggestions:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Sean Hunt wrote:
I disfavor this case (I really don't want to go look through the
archives to find the situation of things).
Me neither necessarily; I think there's a lot in the archives about when
a single announcement can and cannot map to multiple actions. Dependent
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposal: Creative Offices (AI = 2, II = 1)
Create a new power-2 rule entitled Creative Offices and the following text:
A creative office is a role defined as such by the rules. All
creative offices
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
Proposal: Creative Offices (AI = 2, II = 1)
Create a new power-2 rule entitled Creative Offices and the following text:
A
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Gratuitous: CFJ 2517
General difference with this CFJ is (a) that dependent action intents are more
stringent then actions generally but also (b) at the very least, it isn't
possible to accurately announce an intent and specify a proposal to make
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Aaron Goldfeinaarongoldf...@gmail.com
wrote:
Proposal: Creative Offices (AI = 2, II = 1)
Create a new power-2 rule entitled Creative Offices and the following text:
A creative office is a role defined as
Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
I initiate an Agoran decision to decide the holder of the Grand Poobah
office. The eligible voters are the active players, the vote collector
is the IADoP, and the valid options are coppro (incumbent), G.,
Wooble, and PRESENT.
I vote
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I don't think announcement should make the office vacant, (why not give
the incumbent an extra week? better than a vacancy IMO). Maybe say
anyone can initiate an election for which the incumbent is not eligible
to be
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, comex wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
I don't think announcement should make the office vacant, (why not give
the incumbent an extra week? better than a vacancy IMO). Maybe say
anyone can initiate an election for which
Still, a safe way could be if there are any other consenting nominees
when the nomination period ends, the incumbent ceases to be a nominee.
-G.
That was the encouragement behind the player only be removed by announcement.
35 matches
Mail list logo
