DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Karma]

Relatively few people exist for me to give karma to at the moment. Wish we had more active players! On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Corona wrote: > > > Court: > > KarmaEntity > - > SAMURAI > - > +4 Aris <-- SHOGUN > +3 G. > +2

DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

I'm sure some of these pledges have been destroyed, including most of mine. On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report)

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

G. is spot on here, but I want to offer some clarifications. The reason this is done in such a roundabout way is that I wanted to encourage more actual playing. Option 2 exists because I wanted a way to republicize land. Option 1 exists to get currencies in the hands of more people. If something

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

Two things: -You need to announce this as intent unless there was an earlier intent you announced. -Unfortunately, the way the Rule is written, "destroy" can mean either to retract/withdraw or to call in. You definitely don't want to call in. (that's another of those bug fix needed for

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: > I still have that pledge? > > I intend, without objection, to withdraw all pledges that I own. > > [I think I might have done this before and just forgotten to actually follow > through with the intent.] For the record (for everyone), those older pledges

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

The point is to charge some meaningful upkeep cost to zombie owners, using the "scare" mechanism in the rules already. But I think this version is needlessly complicated, and gameable as already pointed out (by two zombie masters colluding), and isn't "scary". I think a simple "pay N to a

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

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > 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. > > Yah, my main point

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

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > 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. Yah, my main point in doing this (other than getting the Scare in) was

Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions

Honestly, I've read all the replies, and I'm still not sure I entirely get the point of this proposal. As is, I would likely just vote PRESENT. On 4/21/2018 5:39 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough compensation for all the power zombies