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

On 11/19/2017 8:32 AM, ATMunn wrote: Again, I haven't read anybody else's comments, so some stuff may have been repeated, but here I go: On 11/19/2017 1:57 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: Okay, here we go with round 2. This is looking like Go and Settlers of Catan were mixed into one game. What

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

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: > > It makes sense for > > ore to bars (and can they at least be coins? we're not Sparta), > > Okay fine. Coins it is. If we can address the larger currency discussion before going further, it would be much appreciated. I, for one, don't want to

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

On 11/19/2017 1:20 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: What else are you putting under "and such"? Nothing, I just wanted to make myself sound smarter. Where did CFJs go? Oh, right. CFJs probably should cost

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

On 11/19/2017 1:10 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Okay, here we go with round 2. This is looking like Go and Settlers of Catan were mixed into one game. What could possibly go wrong? I'm pretty sure I got all of the

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

On 11/19/2017 12:43 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: So I should just have the first two paragraphs plus the little "changes are secured" thing? Yep. In fact, you really shouldn't need even the changes are secured.

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

Welp. Turns out that throwing together another draft of your proposal in 30 minutes just so that there will be one and posting it at midnight does not result in a very well-thought out proposal. On 11/19/2017 12:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: quick comments: -You get rid of shinies then have

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

The current auctions proposal already allows auctions to be conducted in any currency, as Trigon mentioned. On 11/18/2017 11:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Okay, so here's my plan: I love this. A few suggestions.

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

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > >> What else are you >> putting under "and such"? > > > Nothing, I just wanted to make myself sound smarter. Where did CFJs go? >> The alternative, which would be more complex and more >> interesting, but also more

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

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Okay, here we go with round 2. This is looking like Go and Settlers of Catan > were mixed into one game. What could possibly go wrong? > > I'm pretty sure I got all of the mechanics I wanted in there, but it's >

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

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > So I should just have the first two paragraphs plus the little "changes are > secured" thing? Yep. In fact, you really shouldn't need even the changes are secured. They're restricted, and that's probably good

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

It's an a-d draft anyway, so it doesn't matter. -Aris On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Oh, oops. Looks like I didn't write that it was a proposal anywhere. The > proposal starting at the first set of square brackets is PAoAM v2 by Trigon > with

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

quick comments: -You get rid of shinies then have land auctions in shinies (only reason I wanted to keep shinies around was for these auctions, so not obvious to me what to replace them with if you want auctions - which I do!) - seems like you're keeping AP? Might make more sense to ditch

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

On 11/18/2017 9:37 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 9:17 PM, 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:

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

Oh gosh, so many things I didn't even consider. Some of your questions involve my rationale in creating the finished version you see. So I'll have to explain my mindset. Here we go. On 11/18/2017 9:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Reuben Staley

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

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 9:17 PM, 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

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

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Okay, so here's my plan: I love this. A few suggestions. > 1. Ditch shinies. > > 2. Three different production zmetah exist: Farm, Mine, Orchard. When you say that they produce things, do you mean they do it

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

On Sat, 18 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > 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

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

I was planning on having the Treasuror track all the currencies when I wrote up my revised report until people brought up the idea of different officers doing it. I guess the people who track each of them should be decided by you all. Additionally, maybe giving monetary rewards to people who

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

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > 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

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

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > On Nov 17, 2017, at 6:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> I really like this sort of combo-system as a principle - but what do >> recordkeepors think? > > I’d be up for it on a trial basis. It _is_ a lot

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

I have to agree with P.S.S. Promotor is already a lot of work, as (I'm guessing) is Arbitor. I don't want to have to start tracking a part of the economy in addition to proposals. I'd suggest pragmatising CFJs and proposals. Make so that if the Arbitor assigns a CFJ, it exists, with the Arbitor as

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

On Sat, 2017-11-18 at 10:32 -0800, Corona wrote: > Yeah, and there's the anti-ossification rule for the worst case. > By the way, could someone explain to me what is the distinction > between the possibility and legality of an action in Agora? From what > I gather, it seems to be that illegal

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

See rule 2152, "Mother May I?" An action that is ILLEGAL is something that can be done, but it violates the rule in question. Doing something ILLEGAL will, unless it somehow goes uncaught, result in a card. Most of the time, the action still works, though. An IMPOSSIBLE action is literally

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

On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 19:38 -0700, Reuben Staley wrote: > Oh, another thing: We'll need some way for all players currently > > registered to get some of these currencies, otherwise Agora will > > be stuck forever, as nobody will be able to write proposals.. > > Yes, we do need to do that. There

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

On 11/17/2017 5:53 PM, ATMunn wrote: [snip] Okay, so here's my plan: 1. Ditch shinies. 2. Three different production zmetah exist: Farm, Mine, Orchard. 3. Farms produce Corn and Cotton. 4. Mines produce Stone and Ore. 5. Orchards produce Fruit and Lumber. 6. Some number of refinery

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

Why not just have one office for tracking all of them since they interact? On 11/17/2017 06:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: >>> * Define three “base” resources, and associated Zmet types. Let’s pretend >>> they’re Ores, Fungi, and Chipmunks. >>> >>> *

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

I think you could replace absolute magnitude with any of "modulus", "magnitude", or "absolute value". On 11/17/2017 06:28 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > On 11/16/2017 11:09 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> Just saying it is "a record" seems a bit broad. I don't know how you would make that more

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

On 11/17/2017 7:44 PM, ATMunn wrote: On 11/17/2017 6:28 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: On 11/16/2017 11:09 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: 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

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

On 11/17/2017 6:28 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: On 11/16/2017 11:09 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: 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

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

As an Arbitor, right now I have to know if the player has "at least 1" AP left to know if a CFJ succeeded. If I have to know "at least 1 X" and "at least 1 Y" that doubles what I have to track, regardless of the rate of currency movement beyond the "at least 1". Also, I think key to my system

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

I think this is a non-issue, since you'll be having many assets instead of one asset; therefore, less of each asset would be spent, meaning that neither an overall decrease nor an increase in actual effort would be caused by the system. But I could be wrong lol. This is just the way it seems

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

On Nov 17, 2017, at 6:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I really like this sort of combo-system as a principle - but what do > recordkeepors think? I’d be up for it on a trial basis. It _is_ a lot to keep track of, though. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with

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

On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: > > * Define three “base” resources, and associated Zmet types. Let’s pretend > > they’re Ores, Fungi, and Chipmunks. > > > > * Define three “refined” resources (G.’s Sports, Coupons, and Widgets), and > > associated Zmet types. > > > > * To produce a

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

On 11/16/2017 11:09 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: 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. Defining this in

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

you're murdering chipmunks! D: On 11/17/2017 1:09 AM, Owen Jacobson wrote: 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

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

>> 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. Defining this in terms of a set of platonic entities

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

I would be more than happy to volunteer to track information for either of the two land reform proposals up for discussion. They both look grand. Some specific feedback on this one: On Nov 14, 2017, at 12:17 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Re-enact rule 1993/1 (Power=2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. If we had to ditch one and keep the other, I'd pick shinies as will. -- Trigon On Nov 14, 2017 12:29 AM, "Aris Merchant" < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: If we're picking one, I prefer shinies. I think they allow for more interesting build up and planning. -Aris On Mon,

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

If we're picking one, I prefer shinies. I think they allow for more interesting build up and planning. -Aris On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:26 PM 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,

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

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,

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

On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Reuben Staley wrote: > I am expanding the AP system. In some rules, you can spend 1, 2, 3, 4, or 6 > AP to perform map actions. Action Points keep on being hated on and it's > likely that they will be phased out soon. So I gave them a new use as a > kind of limit placed on

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

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

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

I am expanding the AP system. In some rules, you can spend 1, 2, 3, 4, or 6 AP to perform map actions. Action Points keep on being hated on and it's likely that they will be phased out soon. So I gave them a new use as a kind of limit placed on map actions. -- Trigon On Nov 13, 2017 11:11 PM,

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

I also don't know why you're tripling AP when you're also tripling costs? On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Comments on your comments: > > -- > Trigon > > On Nov 13, 2017 11:01 PM, "VJ Rada" wrote: > >> Units of Land SHALL only

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

Comments on your comments: -- Trigon On Nov 13, 2017 11:01 PM, "VJ Rada" wrote: > Units of Land SHALL only be >created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and >Longitude defined in the Rules. Should be CAN. It's a remnant of older ways to describe things

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

> Units of Land SHALL only be >created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and >Longitude defined in the Rules. Should be CAN. >Therefore, in order to make things >less confusing, I used the Sajem Tan word for "Land" instead. NEERD. But really, I would like this to be an easy

DIS: The land reforms I kept on talking up

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,