Re: DIS: missing an ACORN [attn. Aris]
I didn't think about that problem, as I didn't read the previous sentence carefully enough. I still think it works, because to "initiate a sanctioned tournament with a specified, finalized set of regulations, Without 3 Objections" pretty clearly means that the proposed regulations become regulations. Also, reading 2 better defends the interest of the game in any case, so I think that one is more likely. -Aris -Aris On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:44 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > But if Sentence 1 "fails completely" can I promulgate those regulations > in the first place using this method? > > On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Whoops. Sorry, I missed those in my proposals. Free Tournaments are > > just plain broken, because, as you say the rules require an officer. > > The birthday tournament should still work though. The dubious section > > is "By doing so e promulgates those regulations as a special temporary > > title of the ACORN. This title may thereafter be amended only by the > > Herald or eir designee without objection, to correct minor typos." > > There is no longer an ACORN, and we can't tell from textual context > > what it would mean for there to be one, so it fails to work as > > intended. The next sentence could behave in one of two ways. 1) > > Sentence 1 has failed completely, so there's no such thing as a title. > > Sentence 2 fails. 2) Sentence 1 succeeds in defining something called > > a "title of the ACORN", and putting these proposals in it. Sentence 2 > > works. > > > > Which one of those is the case is academic unless you try to amend the > > regulations. I'll write up a fix proposal when I get a chance, and I'm > > planning another distribution soon. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So the Tournament rules still reference the ACORN. Further, the new > > > definition of Regulations requires an Officer while Free Tournaments > > > implies that no officer is needed for that kind of Tournament. > > > > > > Aris, can you give a read of the tournament rules w.r.t. the new > > > Regulations rule and opine on whether they plug in nicely to the new > > > regulations rule despite referencing an undefined ACORN - if something > > > is broken I'd like to know now please. > > > > > > > > > > > >
Email again (Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft)
*Sigh* I hadn't seen that previous message. Apparently my email from the lists was disabled because of bounces around July 1, and messages from a-o and a-b only started arriving again today. a-d was still disabled when I checked on the web. I just thought you were being really quiet... Given recent events it's easy to blame the list server for disabling subscriptions too easily, although I've learned before that my email server uses a rather harsh spam blacklist, so maybe it got put on that somehow. Comex, can you tell why the messages bounced? Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: Eh sure I pend pp2 with paper. On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: Here's a draft. Attn. G. and twg: you have proposals you may wish to pend. -Aris --- I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran [snip]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Free Proposals
You have my support, anyway. On 7/5/2018 2:59 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: Unless a consensus forms one way or the other, I'll implement your paper removal suggestion in a separate proposal contingent on this one passing. As for the economic argument, I disagree, for reasons I really should have spelled out when submitting the proposal. The problem isn't that people don't have enough paper. The problem is that people have to use paper in the first place. When an action has a cost, someone is much less likely to take it, even if the cost is actually relatively minor. [1] [2] Every time I write a proposal, I think "Is this really worth one of my two monthly papers?" I would write many more proposals if that thought didn't enter my head. IIRC V.J. Rada has also mentioned this problem. Look at CFJ calling rates before and after they became free. I'll bet that they skyrocketed; I certainly know I've called many more CFJs recently. A player shouldn't even have to think about a cost when they pend a proposal. The limit of five isn't much of an inconvenience, because a) it's huge; b) it resets every week; c) the Promotor or another player can always pend a proposal for you, and has every incentive to do so (right now it's pretty much charity if someone does that); and d) it's not phrased as an economic cost. The combination of those factors means that it feels less like a price, and more like a tacked on limitation, which I for one would not regularly worry about. I hope that my explanation and two proposal solution might be enough to convince you to at least vote PRESENT? -Aris [1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bestiary_of_Behavioral_Economics/Zero_Price [2] https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/zero-price-effect/ On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 11:21 PM Reuben Staley wrote: This would be fine but it completely nullifies paper. A better way to do this while preserving the economy would be to get rid of paper and looms then add lumber to the list of unrefinable resources. Also, everyone gets paper once a month so participation in the economy is completely optional still. And if anyone somehow uses up all their paper, I can just give you some. Though that's not going to happen anytime soon because paper is being consumed slower than it's being produced. All in all, there are quite a few things wrong with this proposal that would prevent me from voting for it. On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 23:58 Aris Merchant wrote: I've gotten sick and tired of restrictions being placed on gameplay to force people into economies. I have no objection to the economy affecting ordinary play, but it should be truly optional. I love how these days people CFJ whenever they have a concern, without worrying about it cutting into their reserves. Proposals are a contribution to the game. Most of them try to make gameplay better for everyone. We should not discourage people from contributing; if anything, we should reward them. This is deliberately minimal. I'm leaving paper in place to allow it to be repurposed for something else. People should not spam proposals, so my proposals allows five pends per week. The Promotor gets another five for other people's proposals, on the assumption that e will use them to pend proposals that players have forgotten to pend, or if another player legitimately bumps into eir cap. I submit the following proposal. I'm going to pend it unless someone finds a technical problem, or we decide on a better solution to the paper situation. -Aris --- Title: Free Proposals Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Change Rule 2445, "How to Pend a Proposal", to read in full: Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or "not pending" (default). Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" by announcement, but cannot use this method more than five times each week. The first five proposals pended by the Promotor of which e is not the author do not count against eir weekly limit.
Re: DIS: RfC: Reform, Repeal, or Replacement
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:21 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > Okay. We all agree that the land system has problems. What we don't > seem to agree on is how to fix them. I invite proposals. In a week, I > will run an instant runoff vote of every option proposed. Doing > nothing will be an option. At the end of that decision, I will request > that all players vote for whatever the accepted solution is. I > obviously have no way of enforcing that, I'm just trying to fix the > problem even though it's unclear that any one solution can attract > enough votes to get past 3.0 AI. tl;dr: Paper is bad for everyone. Aris is very grouchy and rants quite a bit about it. I would very much appreciate getting rid of paper as a part of whatever solution we end up adopting. I honestly believe that we can operate under an optional economic mini game. We've done fine _without any assets at all_ in the past, and that worked fine. No one enjoys having to pay for proposals. nichdel once said that one of the goals of any economic system should be to encourage adding to the story of Agora. Making people work to pass a proposal actively discourages this. I think we need to move past the idea of making participation mandatory. Mini-games should be fun. People should play them because they're fun, because they enjoy the challenge of trying to gain advantage and win. I'm not playing the economy at the moment. I'm not going to do something I don't want to do to play the game. Everything I do here, I do because I enjoy it. I'm Promotor not for the pay, but because I actually enjoy the work and the feeling of involvement. If someone writes up a proposal, they do it because it makes the game better, or more interesting. Out of the 67 proposals distributed this year, I can find 2 that were written for the personal benefit of their authors, V.J. Rada Equitable Remedy. and V.J. Rada Equitable Remedy v2. Writing proposals is a service to Agora. It's also fun, which is why people do it. Players should not feel like their contributions to the game come out of a monthly budget. People should pay for things which benefit them. If people want to pay for zombies, I'm cool with that. If people want to pay to win, I'm cool with that too. When I write a proposal, I feel really good. I feel like I've done something that's helpful. I feel like I've made a contribution. And then I go to pend that proposal, and I don't feel so good about it anymore. I think "Why am I doing this?" It's probably irrational, but I feel like I'm spending money on volunteering. If we want to have a way to use the proposal system to encourage interaction with the economy, that's fine by me. I'd argue zombies already do that, but if we can think of another addition (while preserving balance), then that's totally fine. But having to pay to pend proposals makes me really, really grouchy. It doesn't even serve a purpose. Despite it making me grouchy, it's not encouraging me to play the economy (if anything, it's encouraging me to quit) and how many players are actually producing paper?. It is therefore bad, unpleasant, and harmful without having any redeeming feature whatsoever. The entire idea of paying for proposals must be removed. If we can repurpose it for productive end we should, but removing the paper for proposals system is a necessity. Thanks. -Aris
DIS: RfC: Reform, Repeal, or Replacement
Okay. We all agree that the land system has problems. What we don't seem to agree on is how to fix them. I invite proposals. In a week, I will run an instant runoff vote of every option proposed. Doing nothing will be an option. At the end of that decision, I will request that all players vote for whatever the accepted solution is. I obviously have no way of enforcing that, I'm just trying to fix the problem even though it's unclear that any one solution can attract enough votes to get past 3.0 AI. -Aris
Re: DIS: missing an ACORN [attn. Aris]
But if Sentence 1 "fails completely" can I promulgate those regulations in the first place using this method? On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Whoops. Sorry, I missed those in my proposals. Free Tournaments are > just plain broken, because, as you say the rules require an officer. > The birthday tournament should still work though. The dubious section > is "By doing so e promulgates those regulations as a special temporary > title of the ACORN. This title may thereafter be amended only by the > Herald or eir designee without objection, to correct minor typos." > There is no longer an ACORN, and we can't tell from textual context > what it would mean for there to be one, so it fails to work as > intended. The next sentence could behave in one of two ways. 1) > Sentence 1 has failed completely, so there's no such thing as a title. > Sentence 2 fails. 2) Sentence 1 succeeds in defining something called > a "title of the ACORN", and putting these proposals in it. Sentence 2 > works. > > Which one of those is the case is academic unless you try to amend the > regulations. I'll write up a fix proposal when I get a chance, and I'm > planning another distribution soon. > > -Aris > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > So the Tournament rules still reference the ACORN. Further, the new > > definition of Regulations requires an Officer while Free Tournaments > > implies that no officer is needed for that kind of Tournament. > > > > Aris, can you give a read of the tournament rules w.r.t. the new > > Regulations rule and opine on whether they plug in nicely to the new > > regulations rule despite referencing an undefined ACORN - if something > > is broken I'd like to know now please. > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: missing an ACORN [attn. Aris]
Whoops. Sorry, I missed those in my proposals. Free Tournaments are just plain broken, because, as you say the rules require an officer. The birthday tournament should still work though. The dubious section is "By doing so e promulgates those regulations as a special temporary title of the ACORN. This title may thereafter be amended only by the Herald or eir designee without objection, to correct minor typos." There is no longer an ACORN, and we can't tell from textual context what it would mean for there to be one, so it fails to work as intended. The next sentence could behave in one of two ways. 1) Sentence 1 has failed completely, so there's no such thing as a title. Sentence 2 fails. 2) Sentence 1 succeeds in defining something called a "title of the ACORN", and putting these proposals in it. Sentence 2 works. Which one of those is the case is academic unless you try to amend the regulations. I'll write up a fix proposal when I get a chance, and I'm planning another distribution soon. -Aris On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > So the Tournament rules still reference the ACORN. Further, the new > definition of Regulations requires an Officer while Free Tournaments > implies that no officer is needed for that kind of Tournament. > > Aris, can you give a read of the tournament rules w.r.t. the new > Regulations rule and opine on whether they plug in nicely to the new > regulations rule despite referencing an undefined ACORN - if something > is broken I'd like to know now please. > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > >>If P8062 is REJECTED, FOR; otherwise AGAINST. > > These conditionals do not work because these are evaluated at the end of > the voting period, which is before the resolution of proposals. Some language used in the past was "If the outcome of this would be REJECTED if resolved at the end of the voting period, then..."
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065
You sure can if you think this one doesn't have a chance of passing. On 07/05/2018 05:22 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Trigon, do you want to write up a modified proposal on that basis? If not, I'll write something up for the next distribution, which may be soon. -Aris On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:21 PM Rebecca wrote: We fundamentally should not entirely repeal our current official currency until there is a new one. The vestiges of land should go. But coins and paydays should stay as a stopgap, at least. On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: On 07/05/2018 05:10 PM, Rebecca wrote: 8062* Trigon 3.0 The End of the World, Again Trigon AGAINST (zombies are not broken and very fun, as are auctions. this is too sweeping. land repeal is fine). And how do you propose we do auctions if repealing land gets rid of all our currency? If you want to add back these mechanics, go ahead and do so in another proposal once we have a new offical Agoran currency. -- Trigon -- From V.J. Rada -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065
Trigon, do you want to write up a modified proposal on that basis? If not, I'll write something up for the next distribution, which may be soon. -Aris On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:21 PM Rebecca wrote: > > We fundamentally should not entirely repeal our current official currency > until there is a new one. The vestiges of land should go. But coins and > paydays should stay as a stopgap, at least. > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > On 07/05/2018 05:10 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > > >> 8062* Trigon 3.0 The End of the World, Again Trigon > >> AGAINST (zombies are not broken and very fun, as are auctions. this is too > >> sweeping. land repeal is fine). > >> > > And how do you propose we do auctions if repealing land gets rid of all > > our currency? If you want to add back these mechanics, go ahead and do so > > in another proposal once we have a new offical Agoran currency. > > > > -- > > Trigon > > > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065
We fundamentally should not entirely repeal our current official currency until there is a new one. The vestiges of land should go. But coins and paydays should stay as a stopgap, at least. On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > On 07/05/2018 05:10 PM, Rebecca wrote: > >> 8062* Trigon 3.0 The End of the World, Again Trigon >> AGAINST (zombies are not broken and very fun, as are auctions. this is too >> sweeping. land repeal is fine). >> > And how do you propose we do auctions if repealing land gets rid of all > our currency? If you want to add back these mechanics, go ahead and do so > in another proposal once we have a new offical Agoran currency. > > -- > Trigon > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065
On 07/05/2018 05:10 PM, Rebecca wrote: 8062* Trigon 3.0 The End of the World, Again Trigon AGAINST (zombies are not broken and very fun, as are auctions. this is too sweeping. land repeal is fine). And how do you propose we do auctions if repealing land gets rid of all our currency? If you want to add back these mechanics, go ahead and do so in another proposal once we have a new offical Agoran currency. -- Trigon
DIS: missing an ACORN [attn. Aris]
So the Tournament rules still reference the ACORN. Further, the new definition of Regulations requires an Officer while Free Tournaments implies that no officer is needed for that kind of Tournament. Aris, can you give a read of the tournament rules w.r.t. the new Regulations rule and opine on whether they plug in nicely to the new regulations rule despite referencing an undefined ACORN - if something is broken I'd like to know now please.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065
I vote as follows 8058* V.J. Rada 1.0 Medal of Honour Auctions V.J. Rada FOR 8059* G. 1.0 honour is its own reward G. AGAINST 8060* V.J. Rada 1.8 Notary-B-Gone V.J. Rada FOR 8061+ Aris 1.0 Free ProposalsAris FOR 8062* Trigon 3.0 The End of the World, Again Trigon AGAINST (zombies are not broken and very fun, as are auctions. this is too sweeping. land repeal is fine). 8063* V.J. Rada 2.0 IAR Writs Repeal V.J. Rada FOR 8064* G. 1.0 Land Grants G. Most catchup mechanisms are inherently dumb as I have said before, AGAINST. 8065* twg2.0 No undead courts twg I don't care, PRESENT I also act on behalf of my zombie, Ouri, to vote the same as I do On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > quorum is 5.0 [1], the voting method is AI-majority and the valid > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > conditional votes). > > [1] Quorum is provisional, and could actually be anywhere between > 5.0 and 7.0. > > ID Author(s) AI Title Pender > > --- > 8058* V.J. Rada 1.0 Medal of Honour Auctions V.J. Rada > 8059* G. 1.0 honour is its own reward G. > 8060* V.J. Rada 1.8 Notary-B-Gone V.J. Rada > 8061+ Aris 1.0 Free ProposalsAris > 8062* Trigon 3.0 The End of the World, Again Trigon > 8063* V.J. Rada 2.0 IAR Writs Repeal V.J. Rada > 8064* G. 1.0 Land Grants G. > 8065* twg2.0 No undead courts twg > > The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals: > > ID Author(s) AI Title > > --- > pp1V.J. Rada 1.0Secret Auctions > > > Legend: * : Proposal is pending. > + : By publishing this report, and before any other > action taken by sending this message, I pay a > paper to pend the marked proposal. > > > The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. > > // > ID: 8058 > Title: Medal of Honour Auctions > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: V.J. Rada > Co-authors: > > > Amend rule 2529 "Medals of Honour" by replacing the second paragraph with > > "Beginning in the second Eastman Week of an Agoran Month and ending > at the end of that Month, the Herald CAN initiate an auction for a Medal > of Honour as the only lot. E SHALL do so in the second Eastman Week of > that Month. For this auction, the announcer is the Herald, the minimum > bid is 60 coins, and Agora is the auctioneer. Only eligible players > are allowed to bid in such an Auction. > > // > ID: 8059 > Title: honour is its own reward > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: G. > Co-authors: > > > Repeal Rule 2529 (Medals of Honour). > > [We've given it a good go, with both this and previously with > Victory Elections. Straight-up vote-for-a-winner mechanisms just > don't attract enough interest]. > > // > ID: 8060 > Title: Notary-B-Gone > Adoption index: 1.8 > Author: V.J. Rada > Co-authors: > > > Delete the last paragraph of rule 2450, "Pledges" > > // > ID: 8061 > Title: Free Proposals > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > > Change Rule 2445, "How to Pend a Proposal", to read in full: > > Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by > proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or > "not pending" (default). > > Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" > by announcement, but cannot use this method more than five times > each week. The first five proposals pended by the Promotor of which e > is not the author do not count against eir weekly limit. > > // > ID: 8062 > Title: The End of the World, Again > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Trigon > Co-authors: > > > Repeal Rule 1993 "The Land of Arcadia" > Repeal Rule 1994 "Ownership of Land" > Repeal Rule 1995 "Land Types" > Repeal Rule 1996 "The Cartographor" > Repeal Rule 1998 "Land Topology" > Repeal Rule 1999 "Entity Location" > Repeal Rule 2003 "Actions in
Re: DIS: Draft contract for playing chess on the map
The map is going to be repealed soon. Also if it wasn't, there's still only two dimensions on it. On Thu, Jul 5, 2018, 14:52 David Nicol wrote: > You seem to have limited your board to two dimensions, which might be by > design instead of oversight. On the other hand, Agora Lands are probably > 2D. > > see http://tipjar.com/games/CHESS/FullBoardStrongKnights.html which was of > course inspired by > FRC round 256, which involved playing chess in a small hypercube: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/frc-play/chess%7Csort:date/frc-play/M-EZ0ua_P4c/BPPT2vtUdrYJ > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:12 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > What do people think of this? Would you take part if I actually created > > this contract? More importantly, can you see any loopholes or mistakes? > > > > -- > "At this point, given the limited available data, certainty about only a > very small number of things can be achieved." -- Plato, and others >
Re: DIS: Draft contract for playing chess on the map
You seem to have limited your board to two dimensions, which might be by design instead of oversight. On the other hand, Agora Lands are probably 2D. see http://tipjar.com/games/CHESS/FullBoardStrongKnights.html which was of course inspired by FRC round 256, which involved playing chess in a small hypercube: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/frc-play/chess%7Csort:date/frc-play/M-EZ0ua_P4c/BPPT2vtUdrYJ On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:12 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > What do people think of this? Would you take part if I actually created > this contract? More importantly, can you see any loopholes or mistakes? > -- "At this point, given the limited available data, certainty about only a very small number of things can be achieved." -- Plato, and others
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I'd suggest we make proposals free, drop zombies, and go back to the one > > blot per week removal scheme. Then we enact another enconomy, and see if > > the zombies are not so OP in that system. > > How are they OP since the reforms? Mostly the wages. Also, the map wasn't really designed to handle being in two places at once. OP is perhaps a bit strong, but they're definitely adding to the problem of it being difficult to compete with established players. -Aris > >
DIS: Re: BUS: The End of the World, Again
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 1:36 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > O > On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > And there came a day when the Agoran people could do nothing but watch > as the > > world fell apart around them. All manner of disasters, natural or > otherwise, > > ravaged the world and forced them to abandon their Land of Arcadia... > for a > > second time. > > Notice of Honour > +1 Trigon - however this is resolved, it's been a heck of a ride. > -1 Aris - never participating, but quick to want to disassemble. > Fair enough. :) I bought some land once, and then there were no reports, and I woke up to find it had gone away from falling to pay fees. I got annoyed, and have never really reentered the economy. Part of that is all of the various problems that keep happening, but a fair bit is me being lazy. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > I'd suggest we make proposals free, drop zombies, and go back to the one > blot per week removal scheme. Then we enact another enconomy, and see if > the zombies are not so OP in that system. How are they OP since the reforms?
DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Decorum
[I'm going to send my initial judgement to Discussion each time to keep chatter in BUS down - will finalize in BUS ~once a day.] The Court finds this VALID and instructs the Clerk to number it FRC-1. Fits the style - be it hereby noted that this is granted +1 Style as a baseline for future entries. On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > My friends and colleagues, now that we are before the court, the honorable > G. presiding, I think we should maintain some decorum. I propose the > following rule, to maintain order in the court: all rules and > pronouncements we see, in the form of arguments shall be. > > -Aris >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
I'd suggest we make proposals free, drop zombies, and go back to the one blot per week removal scheme. Then we enact another enconomy, and see if the zombies are not so OP in that system. -Aris On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:02 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > The "replacement" should be independent and after the repeal (not that > discussing it is bad but that should be wholly separate). Trying to do > a "bridge" from shinies to Land was one of the places where compromises > bogged down the start. > > OTOH, are we talking about getting rid of zombies too? Because if not, > we need Coins/currency of some sort for the bidding. Which means partial > repeal and figuring out coin distribution - and even if we say that's a > scaleback that's still a "new" system. At which point I'm like, if people > want to try a tweaked land one more time, I'm down with that. > > On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Sure. It just doesn't feel great to repeal something you've worked hard > on. > > > > What should we replace it with? I'd like to see my pending system as a > part > > of the repeal. Other than that... maybe re adopt the Alexis's Party > system? > > We all agreed that it was fun to play, apart from some bugs, which could > > definitely be fixed. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:46 AM Reuben Staley > > wrote: > > > > > It's okay. I was a newer player, in over my head, who didn't have a > > > great grasp of Agoran language, who would turn out to be a bad officer. > > > But it was an interesting mechanic for a while. > > > > > > And thanks for offering to write up the repeal proposal, but I think it > > > would only be appropriate that I finish the job I started. > > > > > > On 7/5/2018 12:38 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > I hate to do this, but I'm going to write up a full repeal. They're > > > > interesting mechanics, but they just don't seem to be much fun to > play. I > > > > have a feeling that the problems are systemic enough that no amount > of > > > > tweaking will actually fix them. I'm sorry. I know you worked hard on > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 10:45 AM Reuben Staley < > reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> If we want to "fix" Arcadia, we need to figure out what the > underlying > > > >> issues are. So what /are/ the issues with these mechanics? > > > >> > > > >> I did not take zombies into consideration when writing up the > original > > > >> PAoaM proposal. Zombies provided a cheap way to get double your > monthly > > > >> income when I wanted the only way to gain more income to be by > > > >> interacting with the facilities mechanic. If zombies hadn't been a > > > >> thing, maybe the monopolies wouldn't have been so simple to nail > down. > > > >> > > > >> It was unbalanced in ways that I couldn't have forseen. Upgrading > > > >> Processing Facilities is something we're just getting into now, but > it's > > > >> an important thing. A rank 5 mine feeding 10 ore a week into a rank > 5 > > > >> refinery... that is 130 coins a week. Once someone goes a couple > weeks > > > >> with this setup, they might be impossible to defeat. > > > >> > > > >> Players also stopped caring. Maybe if we had some of the early > adopters > > > >> of the Arcadia mechanics still playing, it would be easier to gang > up on > > > >> the monopolists, but many of them have simply stopped caring about > these > > > >> mechanics. It's gotten too dramatic. > > > >> > > > >> I was not the best at being an effective Cartographor. I didn't do > > > >> weekly land auctions half of the time. I could have done a lot more > to > > > >> ensure healthy development of the map. > > > >> > > > >> PAoaM was a buggy mess that took months to fix. That really hindered > > > >> people's enjoyment of it for ~3 months after it passed. > > > >> > > > >> In my opinion, the Arcadia subgame has gotten progressively less > fun due > > > >> to a multitude of reasons. People keep on trying to patch it, but > all > > > >> those patches fall through and are either abandoned by their > creator or > > > >> they don't actually fix the underlying issues. > > > >> > > > >> But, as G. says here, the underlying issues might not even the > biggest > > > >> problem. A lack of knowledge on how these mechanics will effect the > game > > > >> is. We. Don't. Playtest. And I don't know how keen others would be > on > > > >> trial and error to find a balanced set of mechanics. That sure > sounds > > > >> like a borefest to me. > > > >> > > > >> If it's true that to get a perfect set of mechanics is just repeated > > > >> tests, count me with the repeal-the-whole-dang-thing crowd. I think > lots > > > >> of us here would agree. > > > >> > > > >> I know I said that I wanted to preserve the Arcadian mechanics as > long > > > >> as I could but I'm beginning to think that it really is time to get > rid > > > >> of these mechanics. Hopefully someone else can come up with a > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
The "replacement" should be independent and after the repeal (not that discussing it is bad but that should be wholly separate). Trying to do a "bridge" from shinies to Land was one of the places where compromises bogged down the start. OTOH, are we talking about getting rid of zombies too? Because if not, we need Coins/currency of some sort for the bidding. Which means partial repeal and figuring out coin distribution - and even if we say that's a scaleback that's still a "new" system. At which point I'm like, if people want to try a tweaked land one more time, I'm down with that. On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Sure. It just doesn't feel great to repeal something you've worked hard on. > > What should we replace it with? I'd like to see my pending system as a part > of the repeal. Other than that... maybe re adopt the Alexis's Party system? > We all agreed that it was fun to play, apart from some bugs, which could > definitely be fixed. > > -Aris > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:46 AM Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > It's okay. I was a newer player, in over my head, who didn't have a > > great grasp of Agoran language, who would turn out to be a bad officer. > > But it was an interesting mechanic for a while. > > > > And thanks for offering to write up the repeal proposal, but I think it > > would only be appropriate that I finish the job I started. > > > > On 7/5/2018 12:38 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > I hate to do this, but I'm going to write up a full repeal. They're > > > interesting mechanics, but they just don't seem to be much fun to play. I > > > have a feeling that the problems are systemic enough that no amount of > > > tweaking will actually fix them. I'm sorry. I know you worked hard on > > this. > > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 10:45 AM Reuben Staley > > > wrote: > > > > > >> If we want to "fix" Arcadia, we need to figure out what the underlying > > >> issues are. So what /are/ the issues with these mechanics? > > >> > > >> I did not take zombies into consideration when writing up the original > > >> PAoaM proposal. Zombies provided a cheap way to get double your monthly > > >> income when I wanted the only way to gain more income to be by > > >> interacting with the facilities mechanic. If zombies hadn't been a > > >> thing, maybe the monopolies wouldn't have been so simple to nail down. > > >> > > >> It was unbalanced in ways that I couldn't have forseen. Upgrading > > >> Processing Facilities is something we're just getting into now, but it's > > >> an important thing. A rank 5 mine feeding 10 ore a week into a rank 5 > > >> refinery... that is 130 coins a week. Once someone goes a couple weeks > > >> with this setup, they might be impossible to defeat. > > >> > > >> Players also stopped caring. Maybe if we had some of the early adopters > > >> of the Arcadia mechanics still playing, it would be easier to gang up on > > >> the monopolists, but many of them have simply stopped caring about these > > >> mechanics. It's gotten too dramatic. > > >> > > >> I was not the best at being an effective Cartographor. I didn't do > > >> weekly land auctions half of the time. I could have done a lot more to > > >> ensure healthy development of the map. > > >> > > >> PAoaM was a buggy mess that took months to fix. That really hindered > > >> people's enjoyment of it for ~3 months after it passed. > > >> > > >> In my opinion, the Arcadia subgame has gotten progressively less fun due > > >> to a multitude of reasons. People keep on trying to patch it, but all > > >> those patches fall through and are either abandoned by their creator or > > >> they don't actually fix the underlying issues. > > >> > > >> But, as G. says here, the underlying issues might not even the biggest > > >> problem. A lack of knowledge on how these mechanics will effect the game > > >> is. We. Don't. Playtest. And I don't know how keen others would be on > > >> trial and error to find a balanced set of mechanics. That sure sounds > > >> like a borefest to me. > > >> > > >> If it's true that to get a perfect set of mechanics is just repeated > > >> tests, count me with the repeal-the-whole-dang-thing crowd. I think lots > > >> of us here would agree. > > >> > > >> I know I said that I wanted to preserve the Arcadian mechanics as long > > >> as I could but I'm beginning to think that it really is time to get rid > > >> of these mechanics. Hopefully someone else can come up with a > > breakthrough. > > >> > > >> On 07/05/2018 11:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Eh, mark me as someone who would be burned out. > > >>> > > >>> It took - hmm, a few months play, a coin/corn bug, and a big payroll > > from > > >>> zombies to open up the board (for everyone) and get some land enough to > > >> get > > >>> to this point. > > >>> > > >>> At this point - with several land - I'm starting to get into the worker > > >>> placement and currency budgeting part and it's kind of
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
Sure. It just doesn't feel great to repeal something you've worked hard on.
What should we replace it with? I'd like to see my pending system as a part
of the repeal. Other than that... maybe re adopt the Alexis's Party system?
We all agreed that it was fun to play, apart from some bugs, which could
definitely be fixed.
-Aris
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 11:46 AM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> It's okay. I was a newer player, in over my head, who didn't have a
> great grasp of Agoran language, who would turn out to be a bad officer.
> But it was an interesting mechanic for a while.
>
> And thanks for offering to write up the repeal proposal, but I think it
> would only be appropriate that I finish the job I started.
>
> On 7/5/2018 12:38 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I hate to do this, but I'm going to write up a full repeal. They're
> > interesting mechanics, but they just don't seem to be much fun to play. I
> > have a feeling that the problems are systemic enough that no amount of
> > tweaking will actually fix them. I'm sorry. I know you worked hard on
> this.
> >
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 10:45 AM Reuben Staley
> > wrote:
> >
> >> If we want to "fix" Arcadia, we need to figure out what the underlying
> >> issues are. So what /are/ the issues with these mechanics?
> >>
> >> I did not take zombies into consideration when writing up the original
> >> PAoaM proposal. Zombies provided a cheap way to get double your monthly
> >> income when I wanted the only way to gain more income to be by
> >> interacting with the facilities mechanic. If zombies hadn't been a
> >> thing, maybe the monopolies wouldn't have been so simple to nail down.
> >>
> >> It was unbalanced in ways that I couldn't have forseen. Upgrading
> >> Processing Facilities is something we're just getting into now, but it's
> >> an important thing. A rank 5 mine feeding 10 ore a week into a rank 5
> >> refinery... that is 130 coins a week. Once someone goes a couple weeks
> >> with this setup, they might be impossible to defeat.
> >>
> >> Players also stopped caring. Maybe if we had some of the early adopters
> >> of the Arcadia mechanics still playing, it would be easier to gang up on
> >> the monopolists, but many of them have simply stopped caring about these
> >> mechanics. It's gotten too dramatic.
> >>
> >> I was not the best at being an effective Cartographor. I didn't do
> >> weekly land auctions half of the time. I could have done a lot more to
> >> ensure healthy development of the map.
> >>
> >> PAoaM was a buggy mess that took months to fix. That really hindered
> >> people's enjoyment of it for ~3 months after it passed.
> >>
> >> In my opinion, the Arcadia subgame has gotten progressively less fun due
> >> to a multitude of reasons. People keep on trying to patch it, but all
> >> those patches fall through and are either abandoned by their creator or
> >> they don't actually fix the underlying issues.
> >>
> >> But, as G. says here, the underlying issues might not even the biggest
> >> problem. A lack of knowledge on how these mechanics will effect the game
> >> is. We. Don't. Playtest. And I don't know how keen others would be on
> >> trial and error to find a balanced set of mechanics. That sure sounds
> >> like a borefest to me.
> >>
> >> If it's true that to get a perfect set of mechanics is just repeated
> >> tests, count me with the repeal-the-whole-dang-thing crowd. I think lots
> >> of us here would agree.
> >>
> >> I know I said that I wanted to preserve the Arcadian mechanics as long
> >> as I could but I'm beginning to think that it really is time to get rid
> >> of these mechanics. Hopefully someone else can come up with a
> breakthrough.
> >>
> >> On 07/05/2018 11:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Eh, mark me as someone who would be burned out.
> >>>
> >>> It took - hmm, a few months play, a coin/corn bug, and a big payroll
> from
> >>> zombies to open up the board (for everyone) and get some land enough to
> >> get
> >>> to this point.
> >>>
> >>> At this point - with several land - I'm starting to get into the worker
> >>> placement and currency budgeting part and it's kind of interesting.
> I'm
> >>> even willing to keep trying for a little bit as-is. But I'm not keen
> >>> enough to do a reset and go through all that again over months to get
> to
> >>> this point.
> >>>
> >>> Now maybe your reforms would help substantially, but they're not
> >> play-tested.
> >>> If we could tweak in fast-time ("go through" enough rounds without
> taking
> >>> weeks to do so each time) we might find a set of rules that worked via
> >>> playtesting. Maybe doing auctions differently would help. But after
> >>> shinies and then this, I'm not really feeling the commitment to do
> >> economy
> >>> round#3 at Agora-speed while waiting for the inevitable crashing bugs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Reply-to is the worst.
>
> On 07/05/2018 10:33 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
If it's worth anything, I don't blame you for this mechanic failing.
On 7/5/2018 12:48 PM, Corona wrote:
I was the one to advocate early release with bugs fixed through
playtesting, and I'm guilty of abandoning my reform plans too, I'm sorry.
An important point I'd like to make (for future economies if the current
one can't be salvaged): I'm not sure where I read it anymore, but Agora is
supposed to have these "lightning rods" in place to prevent/discourage a
player or a group of players from acquiring permanent dominance (but
simultaneously reward the players for their achievement). That is, when
such dominance would happen, the progress that the player has made towards
it is erased, and the player gets a win, and play can go on. This mechanic
should be present in the economy too.
E.g. the Black Ribbons/Win by Clout for the voting aspect of Agora, or the
fairly recent Politics system, which, ignoring the (fixable) bugs would
have worked quite nicely - when a player gained a majority of the
politicians' votes, they got a win and all of eir currencies related to the
Politics system were reset, allowing play to resume.
@G.: Yes. It's not like I wasn't playing by the same rules as everyone else
(I didn't even exploit any bug, the one I tried didn't work), I just looted
and bid more often. And creating a monopoly should be handled by a
"lightning rod", see above.
~Corona
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Reuben Staley
wrote:
If we want to "fix" Arcadia, we need to figure out what the underlying
issues are. So what /are/ the issues with these mechanics?
I did not take zombies into consideration when writing up the original
PAoaM proposal. Zombies provided a cheap way to get double your monthly
income when I wanted the only way to gain more income to be by interacting
with the facilities mechanic. If zombies hadn't been a thing, maybe the
monopolies wouldn't have been so simple to nail down.
It was unbalanced in ways that I couldn't have forseen. Upgrading
Processing Facilities is something we're just getting into now, but it's an
important thing. A rank 5 mine feeding 10 ore a week into a rank 5
refinery... that is 130 coins a week. Once someone goes a couple weeks with
this setup, they might be impossible to defeat.
Players also stopped caring. Maybe if we had some of the early adopters of
the Arcadia mechanics still playing, it would be easier to gang up on the
monopolists, but many of them have simply stopped caring about these
mechanics. It's gotten too dramatic.
I was not the best at being an effective Cartographor. I didn't do weekly
land auctions half of the time. I could have done a lot more to ensure
healthy development of the map.
PAoaM was a buggy mess that took months to fix. That really hindered
people's enjoyment of it for ~3 months after it passed.
In my opinion, the Arcadia subgame has gotten progressively less fun due
to a multitude of reasons. People keep on trying to patch it, but all those
patches fall through and are either abandoned by their creator or they
don't actually fix the underlying issues.
But, as G. says here, the underlying issues might not even the biggest
problem. A lack of knowledge on how these mechanics will effect the game
is. We. Don't. Playtest. And I don't know how keen others would be on trial
and error to find a balanced set of mechanics. That sure sounds like a
borefest to me.
If it's true that to get a perfect set of mechanics is just repeated
tests, count me with the repeal-the-whole-dang-thing crowd. I think lots of
us here would agree.
I know I said that I wanted to preserve the Arcadian mechanics as long as
I could but I'm beginning to think that it really is time to get rid of
these mechanics. Hopefully someone else can come up with a breakthrough.
On 07/05/2018 11:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Eh, mark me as someone who would be burned out.
It took - hmm, a few months play, a coin/corn bug, and a big payroll from
zombies to open up the board (for everyone) and get some land enough to
get
to this point.
At this point - with several land - I'm starting to get into the worker
placement and currency budgeting part and it's kind of interesting. I'm
even willing to keep trying for a little bit as-is. But I'm not keen
enough to do a reset and go through all that again over months to get to
this point.
Now maybe your reforms would help substantially, but they're not
play-tested.
If we could tweak in fast-time ("go through" enough rounds without taking
weeks to do so each time) we might find a set of rules that worked via
playtesting. Maybe doing auctions differently would help. But after
shinies and then this, I'm not really feeling the commitment to do economy
round#3 at Agora-speed while waiting for the inevitable crashing bugs.
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
Reply-to is the worst.
On 07/05/2018 10:33 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
As in resetting the map and giving everyone a welcome-package-sized
amount
of resources and
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
If you're in the mood for a farm/grind game, these rules fun to play once
you have 4+ reasonably contiguous land units to get some production going,
some currency still (you didn't go broke getting those land units), and when
reports are very strictly up-to-date. Trying to get to that point through
an auction mechanic and/or outdated reports is a royal pain.
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I hate to do this, but I'm going to write up a full repeal. They're
> interesting mechanics, but they just don't seem to be much fun to play. I
> have a feeling that the problems are systemic enough that no amount of
> tweaking will actually fix them. I'm sorry. I know you worked hard on this.
>
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 10:45 AM Reuben Staley
> wrote:
>
> > If we want to "fix" Arcadia, we need to figure out what the underlying
> > issues are. So what /are/ the issues with these mechanics?
> >
> > I did not take zombies into consideration when writing up the original
> > PAoaM proposal. Zombies provided a cheap way to get double your monthly
> > income when I wanted the only way to gain more income to be by
> > interacting with the facilities mechanic. If zombies hadn't been a
> > thing, maybe the monopolies wouldn't have been so simple to nail down.
> >
> > It was unbalanced in ways that I couldn't have forseen. Upgrading
> > Processing Facilities is something we're just getting into now, but it's
> > an important thing. A rank 5 mine feeding 10 ore a week into a rank 5
> > refinery... that is 130 coins a week. Once someone goes a couple weeks
> > with this setup, they might be impossible to defeat.
> >
> > Players also stopped caring. Maybe if we had some of the early adopters
> > of the Arcadia mechanics still playing, it would be easier to gang up on
> > the monopolists, but many of them have simply stopped caring about these
> > mechanics. It's gotten too dramatic.
> >
> > I was not the best at being an effective Cartographor. I didn't do
> > weekly land auctions half of the time. I could have done a lot more to
> > ensure healthy development of the map.
> >
> > PAoaM was a buggy mess that took months to fix. That really hindered
> > people's enjoyment of it for ~3 months after it passed.
> >
> > In my opinion, the Arcadia subgame has gotten progressively less fun due
> > to a multitude of reasons. People keep on trying to patch it, but all
> > those patches fall through and are either abandoned by their creator or
> > they don't actually fix the underlying issues.
> >
> > But, as G. says here, the underlying issues might not even the biggest
> > problem. A lack of knowledge on how these mechanics will effect the game
> > is. We. Don't. Playtest. And I don't know how keen others would be on
> > trial and error to find a balanced set of mechanics. That sure sounds
> > like a borefest to me.
> >
> > If it's true that to get a perfect set of mechanics is just repeated
> > tests, count me with the repeal-the-whole-dang-thing crowd. I think lots
> > of us here would agree.
> >
> > I know I said that I wanted to preserve the Arcadian mechanics as long
> > as I could but I'm beginning to think that it really is time to get rid
> > of these mechanics. Hopefully someone else can come up with a breakthrough.
> >
> > On 07/05/2018 11:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Eh, mark me as someone who would be burned out.
> > >
> > > It took - hmm, a few months play, a coin/corn bug, and a big payroll from
> > > zombies to open up the board (for everyone) and get some land enough to
> > get
> > > to this point.
> > >
> > > At this point - with several land - I'm starting to get into the worker
> > > placement and currency budgeting part and it's kind of interesting. I'm
> > > even willing to keep trying for a little bit as-is. But I'm not keen
> > > enough to do a reset and go through all that again over months to get to
> > > this point.
> > >
> > > Now maybe your reforms would help substantially, but they're not
> > play-tested.
> > > If we could tweak in fast-time ("go through" enough rounds without taking
> > > weeks to do so each time) we might find a set of rules that worked via
> > > playtesting. Maybe doing auctions differently would help. But after
> > > shinies and then this, I'm not really feeling the commitment to do
> > economy
> > > round#3 at Agora-speed while waiting for the inevitable crashing bugs.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > >> Reply-to is the worst.
> > >>
> > >> On 07/05/2018 10:33 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > >>> As in resetting the map and giving everyone a welcome-package-sized
> > amount
> > >>> of resources and making a little spawn island? It might work,
> > considering
> > >>> that that reform plan was supposed to fix balancing issues. But also I
> > think
> > >>> that would just make even more people burned out on this subgame.
> > >>>
> > >>> On 07/05/2018 10:20 AM, Corona wrote:
> > What about just resetting the
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
I was the one to advocate early release with bugs fixed through
playtesting, and I'm guilty of abandoning my reform plans too, I'm sorry.
An important point I'd like to make (for future economies if the current
one can't be salvaged): I'm not sure where I read it anymore, but Agora is
supposed to have these "lightning rods" in place to prevent/discourage a
player or a group of players from acquiring permanent dominance (but
simultaneously reward the players for their achievement). That is, when
such dominance would happen, the progress that the player has made towards
it is erased, and the player gets a win, and play can go on. This mechanic
should be present in the economy too.
E.g. the Black Ribbons/Win by Clout for the voting aspect of Agora, or the
fairly recent Politics system, which, ignoring the (fixable) bugs would
have worked quite nicely - when a player gained a majority of the
politicians' votes, they got a win and all of eir currencies related to the
Politics system were reset, allowing play to resume.
@G.: Yes. It's not like I wasn't playing by the same rules as everyone else
(I didn't even exploit any bug, the one I tried didn't work), I just looted
and bid more often. And creating a monopoly should be handled by a
"lightning rod", see above.
~Corona
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 7:45 PM, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> If we want to "fix" Arcadia, we need to figure out what the underlying
> issues are. So what /are/ the issues with these mechanics?
>
> I did not take zombies into consideration when writing up the original
> PAoaM proposal. Zombies provided a cheap way to get double your monthly
> income when I wanted the only way to gain more income to be by interacting
> with the facilities mechanic. If zombies hadn't been a thing, maybe the
> monopolies wouldn't have been so simple to nail down.
>
> It was unbalanced in ways that I couldn't have forseen. Upgrading
> Processing Facilities is something we're just getting into now, but it's an
> important thing. A rank 5 mine feeding 10 ore a week into a rank 5
> refinery... that is 130 coins a week. Once someone goes a couple weeks with
> this setup, they might be impossible to defeat.
>
> Players also stopped caring. Maybe if we had some of the early adopters of
> the Arcadia mechanics still playing, it would be easier to gang up on the
> monopolists, but many of them have simply stopped caring about these
> mechanics. It's gotten too dramatic.
>
> I was not the best at being an effective Cartographor. I didn't do weekly
> land auctions half of the time. I could have done a lot more to ensure
> healthy development of the map.
>
> PAoaM was a buggy mess that took months to fix. That really hindered
> people's enjoyment of it for ~3 months after it passed.
>
> In my opinion, the Arcadia subgame has gotten progressively less fun due
> to a multitude of reasons. People keep on trying to patch it, but all those
> patches fall through and are either abandoned by their creator or they
> don't actually fix the underlying issues.
>
> But, as G. says here, the underlying issues might not even the biggest
> problem. A lack of knowledge on how these mechanics will effect the game
> is. We. Don't. Playtest. And I don't know how keen others would be on trial
> and error to find a balanced set of mechanics. That sure sounds like a
> borefest to me.
>
> If it's true that to get a perfect set of mechanics is just repeated
> tests, count me with the repeal-the-whole-dang-thing crowd. I think lots of
> us here would agree.
>
> I know I said that I wanted to preserve the Arcadian mechanics as long as
> I could but I'm beginning to think that it really is time to get rid of
> these mechanics. Hopefully someone else can come up with a breakthrough.
>
>
> On 07/05/2018 11:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Eh, mark me as someone who would be burned out.
>>
>> It took - hmm, a few months play, a coin/corn bug, and a big payroll from
>> zombies to open up the board (for everyone) and get some land enough to
>> get
>> to this point.
>>
>> At this point - with several land - I'm starting to get into the worker
>> placement and currency budgeting part and it's kind of interesting. I'm
>> even willing to keep trying for a little bit as-is. But I'm not keen
>> enough to do a reset and go through all that again over months to get to
>> this point.
>>
>> Now maybe your reforms would help substantially, but they're not
>> play-tested.
>> If we could tweak in fast-time ("go through" enough rounds without taking
>> weeks to do so each time) we might find a set of rules that worked via
>> playtesting. Maybe doing auctions differently would help. But after
>> shinies and then this, I'm not really feeling the commitment to do economy
>> round#3 at Agora-speed while waiting for the inevitable crashing bugs.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>>
>>> Reply-to is the worst.
>>>
>>> On 07/05/2018 10:33 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>>>
As in resetting the map and
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
It's okay. I was a newer player, in over my head, who didn't have a
great grasp of Agoran language, who would turn out to be a bad officer.
But it was an interesting mechanic for a while.
And thanks for offering to write up the repeal proposal, but I think it
would only be appropriate that I finish the job I started.
On 7/5/2018 12:38 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I hate to do this, but I'm going to write up a full repeal. They're
interesting mechanics, but they just don't seem to be much fun to play. I
have a feeling that the problems are systemic enough that no amount of
tweaking will actually fix them. I'm sorry. I know you worked hard on this.
-Aris
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 10:45 AM Reuben Staley
wrote:
If we want to "fix" Arcadia, we need to figure out what the underlying
issues are. So what /are/ the issues with these mechanics?
I did not take zombies into consideration when writing up the original
PAoaM proposal. Zombies provided a cheap way to get double your monthly
income when I wanted the only way to gain more income to be by
interacting with the facilities mechanic. If zombies hadn't been a
thing, maybe the monopolies wouldn't have been so simple to nail down.
It was unbalanced in ways that I couldn't have forseen. Upgrading
Processing Facilities is something we're just getting into now, but it's
an important thing. A rank 5 mine feeding 10 ore a week into a rank 5
refinery... that is 130 coins a week. Once someone goes a couple weeks
with this setup, they might be impossible to defeat.
Players also stopped caring. Maybe if we had some of the early adopters
of the Arcadia mechanics still playing, it would be easier to gang up on
the monopolists, but many of them have simply stopped caring about these
mechanics. It's gotten too dramatic.
I was not the best at being an effective Cartographor. I didn't do
weekly land auctions half of the time. I could have done a lot more to
ensure healthy development of the map.
PAoaM was a buggy mess that took months to fix. That really hindered
people's enjoyment of it for ~3 months after it passed.
In my opinion, the Arcadia subgame has gotten progressively less fun due
to a multitude of reasons. People keep on trying to patch it, but all
those patches fall through and are either abandoned by their creator or
they don't actually fix the underlying issues.
But, as G. says here, the underlying issues might not even the biggest
problem. A lack of knowledge on how these mechanics will effect the game
is. We. Don't. Playtest. And I don't know how keen others would be on
trial and error to find a balanced set of mechanics. That sure sounds
like a borefest to me.
If it's true that to get a perfect set of mechanics is just repeated
tests, count me with the repeal-the-whole-dang-thing crowd. I think lots
of us here would agree.
I know I said that I wanted to preserve the Arcadian mechanics as long
as I could but I'm beginning to think that it really is time to get rid
of these mechanics. Hopefully someone else can come up with a breakthrough.
On 07/05/2018 11:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Eh, mark me as someone who would be burned out.
It took - hmm, a few months play, a coin/corn bug, and a big payroll from
zombies to open up the board (for everyone) and get some land enough to
get
to this point.
At this point - with several land - I'm starting to get into the worker
placement and currency budgeting part and it's kind of interesting. I'm
even willing to keep trying for a little bit as-is. But I'm not keen
enough to do a reset and go through all that again over months to get to
this point.
Now maybe your reforms would help substantially, but they're not
play-tested.
If we could tweak in fast-time ("go through" enough rounds without taking
weeks to do so each time) we might find a set of rules that worked via
playtesting. Maybe doing auctions differently would help. But after
shinies and then this, I'm not really feeling the commitment to do
economy
round#3 at Agora-speed while waiting for the inevitable crashing bugs.
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
Reply-to is the worst.
On 07/05/2018 10:33 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
As in resetting the map and giving everyone a welcome-package-sized
amount
of resources and making a little spawn island? It might work,
considering
that that reform plan was supposed to fix balancing issues. But also I
think
that would just make even more people burned out on this subgame.
On 07/05/2018 10:20 AM, Corona wrote:
What about just resetting the economy (to the same state as when it
was
enacted) while implementing Trigon's planned reforms?
~Corona
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
And yeah, not to do with paper, but on the Coins side I'm
done
here.
I'll support a full repeal of this mess. Restraint is not something
that
everyone does well.
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Corona wrote:
I bid 32 coins in auction 1.
I bid 34 coins in auction 5.
~Corona
On Mon, Jul 2,
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
I hate to do this, but I'm going to write up a full repeal. They're
interesting mechanics, but they just don't seem to be much fun to play. I
have a feeling that the problems are systemic enough that no amount of
tweaking will actually fix them. I'm sorry. I know you worked hard on this.
-Aris
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 10:45 AM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> If we want to "fix" Arcadia, we need to figure out what the underlying
> issues are. So what /are/ the issues with these mechanics?
>
> I did not take zombies into consideration when writing up the original
> PAoaM proposal. Zombies provided a cheap way to get double your monthly
> income when I wanted the only way to gain more income to be by
> interacting with the facilities mechanic. If zombies hadn't been a
> thing, maybe the monopolies wouldn't have been so simple to nail down.
>
> It was unbalanced in ways that I couldn't have forseen. Upgrading
> Processing Facilities is something we're just getting into now, but it's
> an important thing. A rank 5 mine feeding 10 ore a week into a rank 5
> refinery... that is 130 coins a week. Once someone goes a couple weeks
> with this setup, they might be impossible to defeat.
>
> Players also stopped caring. Maybe if we had some of the early adopters
> of the Arcadia mechanics still playing, it would be easier to gang up on
> the monopolists, but many of them have simply stopped caring about these
> mechanics. It's gotten too dramatic.
>
> I was not the best at being an effective Cartographor. I didn't do
> weekly land auctions half of the time. I could have done a lot more to
> ensure healthy development of the map.
>
> PAoaM was a buggy mess that took months to fix. That really hindered
> people's enjoyment of it for ~3 months after it passed.
>
> In my opinion, the Arcadia subgame has gotten progressively less fun due
> to a multitude of reasons. People keep on trying to patch it, but all
> those patches fall through and are either abandoned by their creator or
> they don't actually fix the underlying issues.
>
> But, as G. says here, the underlying issues might not even the biggest
> problem. A lack of knowledge on how these mechanics will effect the game
> is. We. Don't. Playtest. And I don't know how keen others would be on
> trial and error to find a balanced set of mechanics. That sure sounds
> like a borefest to me.
>
> If it's true that to get a perfect set of mechanics is just repeated
> tests, count me with the repeal-the-whole-dang-thing crowd. I think lots
> of us here would agree.
>
> I know I said that I wanted to preserve the Arcadian mechanics as long
> as I could but I'm beginning to think that it really is time to get rid
> of these mechanics. Hopefully someone else can come up with a breakthrough.
>
> On 07/05/2018 11:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Eh, mark me as someone who would be burned out.
> >
> > It took - hmm, a few months play, a coin/corn bug, and a big payroll from
> > zombies to open up the board (for everyone) and get some land enough to
> get
> > to this point.
> >
> > At this point - with several land - I'm starting to get into the worker
> > placement and currency budgeting part and it's kind of interesting. I'm
> > even willing to keep trying for a little bit as-is. But I'm not keen
> > enough to do a reset and go through all that again over months to get to
> > this point.
> >
> > Now maybe your reforms would help substantially, but they're not
> play-tested.
> > If we could tweak in fast-time ("go through" enough rounds without taking
> > weeks to do so each time) we might find a set of rules that worked via
> > playtesting. Maybe doing auctions differently would help. But after
> > shinies and then this, I'm not really feeling the commitment to do
> economy
> > round#3 at Agora-speed while waiting for the inevitable crashing bugs.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >> Reply-to is the worst.
> >>
> >> On 07/05/2018 10:33 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >>> As in resetting the map and giving everyone a welcome-package-sized
> amount
> >>> of resources and making a little spawn island? It might work,
> considering
> >>> that that reform plan was supposed to fix balancing issues. But also I
> think
> >>> that would just make even more people burned out on this subgame.
> >>>
> >>> On 07/05/2018 10:20 AM, Corona wrote:
> What about just resetting the economy (to the same state as when it
> was
> enacted) while implementing Trigon's planned reforms?
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > And yeah, not to do with paper, but on the Coins side I'm
> done
> > here.
> > I'll support a full repeal of this mess. Restraint is not something
> > that
> > everyone does well.
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Corona wrote:
> >> I bid 32 coins in auction 1.
> >> I bid 34 coins in auction 5.
> >>
> >> ~Corona
> >>
> >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
I think, as buggy as some of these steps have been, just as big an issue is
dealing with Agoran engagement: "Design a board game for 6 people, but make
it so that half the people can say 'pass' on their turns for the first 5
turns and still be competitive with people who don't pass... oh, and anyone
who joins in midway has to be able to catch up!"
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> If we want to "fix" Arcadia, we need to figure out what the underlying issues
> are. So what /are/ the issues with these mechanics?
>
> I did not take zombies into consideration when writing up the original PAoaM
> proposal. Zombies provided a cheap way to get double your monthly income when
> I wanted the only way to gain more income to be by interacting with the
> facilities mechanic. If zombies hadn't been a thing, maybe the monopolies
> wouldn't have been so simple to nail down.
>
> It was unbalanced in ways that I couldn't have forseen. Upgrading Processing
> Facilities is something we're just getting into now, but it's an important
> thing. A rank 5 mine feeding 10 ore a week into a rank 5 refinery... that is
> 130 coins a week. Once someone goes a couple weeks with this setup, they might
> be impossible to defeat.
>
> Players also stopped caring. Maybe if we had some of the early adopters of the
> Arcadia mechanics still playing, it would be easier to gang up on the
> monopolists, but many of them have simply stopped caring about these
> mechanics. It's gotten too dramatic.
>
> I was not the best at being an effective Cartographor. I didn't do weekly land
> auctions half of the time. I could have done a lot more to ensure healthy
> development of the map.
>
> PAoaM was a buggy mess that took months to fix. That really hindered people's
> enjoyment of it for ~3 months after it passed.
>
> In my opinion, the Arcadia subgame has gotten progressively less fun due to a
> multitude of reasons. People keep on trying to patch it, but all those patches
> fall through and are either abandoned by their creator or they don't actually
> fix the underlying issues.
>
> But, as G. says here, the underlying issues might not even the biggest
> problem. A lack of knowledge on how these mechanics will effect the game is.
> We. Don't. Playtest. And I don't know how keen others would be on trial and
> error to find a balanced set of mechanics. That sure sounds like a borefest to
> me.
>
> If it's true that to get a perfect set of mechanics is just repeated tests,
> count me with the repeal-the-whole-dang-thing crowd. I think lots of us here
> would agree.
>
> I know I said that I wanted to preserve the Arcadian mechanics as long as I
> could but I'm beginning to think that it really is time to get rid of these
> mechanics. Hopefully someone else can come up with a breakthrough.
>
> On 07/05/2018 11:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Eh, mark me as someone who would be burned out.
> >
> > It took - hmm, a few months play, a coin/corn bug, and a big payroll from
> > zombies to open up the board (for everyone) and get some land enough to get
> > to this point.
> >
> > At this point - with several land - I'm starting to get into the worker
> > placement and currency budgeting part and it's kind of interesting. I'm
> > even willing to keep trying for a little bit as-is. But I'm not keen
> > enough to do a reset and go through all that again over months to get to
> > this point.
> >
> > Now maybe your reforms would help substantially, but they're not
> > play-tested.
> > If we could tweak in fast-time ("go through" enough rounds without taking
> > weeks to do so each time) we might find a set of rules that worked via
> > playtesting. Maybe doing auctions differently would help. But after
> > shinies and then this, I'm not really feeling the commitment to do economy
> > round#3 at Agora-speed while waiting for the inevitable crashing bugs.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > Reply-to is the worst.
> > >
> > > On 07/05/2018 10:33 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > > As in resetting the map and giving everyone a welcome-package-sized
> > > > amount
> > > > of resources and making a little spawn island? It might work,
> > > > considering
> > > > that that reform plan was supposed to fix balancing issues. But also I
> > > > think
> > > > that would just make even more people burned out on this subgame.
> > > >
> > > > On 07/05/2018 10:20 AM, Corona wrote:
> > > > > What about just resetting the economy (to the same state as when it
> > > > > was
> > > > > enacted) while implementing Trigon's planned reforms?
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Corona
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Kerim Aydin
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And yeah, not to do with paper, but on the Coins side I'm
> > > > > > done
> > > > > > here.
> > > > > > I'll support a full repeal of this mess. Restraint is not something
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > everyone does well.
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
If we want to "fix" Arcadia, we need to figure out what the underlying
issues are. So what /are/ the issues with these mechanics?
I did not take zombies into consideration when writing up the original
PAoaM proposal. Zombies provided a cheap way to get double your monthly
income when I wanted the only way to gain more income to be by
interacting with the facilities mechanic. If zombies hadn't been a
thing, maybe the monopolies wouldn't have been so simple to nail down.
It was unbalanced in ways that I couldn't have forseen. Upgrading
Processing Facilities is something we're just getting into now, but it's
an important thing. A rank 5 mine feeding 10 ore a week into a rank 5
refinery... that is 130 coins a week. Once someone goes a couple weeks
with this setup, they might be impossible to defeat.
Players also stopped caring. Maybe if we had some of the early adopters
of the Arcadia mechanics still playing, it would be easier to gang up on
the monopolists, but many of them have simply stopped caring about these
mechanics. It's gotten too dramatic.
I was not the best at being an effective Cartographor. I didn't do
weekly land auctions half of the time. I could have done a lot more to
ensure healthy development of the map.
PAoaM was a buggy mess that took months to fix. That really hindered
people's enjoyment of it for ~3 months after it passed.
In my opinion, the Arcadia subgame has gotten progressively less fun due
to a multitude of reasons. People keep on trying to patch it, but all
those patches fall through and are either abandoned by their creator or
they don't actually fix the underlying issues.
But, as G. says here, the underlying issues might not even the biggest
problem. A lack of knowledge on how these mechanics will effect the game
is. We. Don't. Playtest. And I don't know how keen others would be on
trial and error to find a balanced set of mechanics. That sure sounds
like a borefest to me.
If it's true that to get a perfect set of mechanics is just repeated
tests, count me with the repeal-the-whole-dang-thing crowd. I think lots
of us here would agree.
I know I said that I wanted to preserve the Arcadian mechanics as long
as I could but I'm beginning to think that it really is time to get rid
of these mechanics. Hopefully someone else can come up with a breakthrough.
On 07/05/2018 11:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Eh, mark me as someone who would be burned out.
It took - hmm, a few months play, a coin/corn bug, and a big payroll from
zombies to open up the board (for everyone) and get some land enough to get
to this point.
At this point - with several land - I'm starting to get into the worker
placement and currency budgeting part and it's kind of interesting. I'm
even willing to keep trying for a little bit as-is. But I'm not keen
enough to do a reset and go through all that again over months to get to
this point.
Now maybe your reforms would help substantially, but they're not play-tested.
If we could tweak in fast-time ("go through" enough rounds without taking
weeks to do so each time) we might find a set of rules that worked via
playtesting. Maybe doing auctions differently would help. But after
shinies and then this, I'm not really feeling the commitment to do economy
round#3 at Agora-speed while waiting for the inevitable crashing bugs.
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
Reply-to is the worst.
On 07/05/2018 10:33 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
As in resetting the map and giving everyone a welcome-package-sized amount
of resources and making a little spawn island? It might work, considering
that that reform plan was supposed to fix balancing issues. But also I think
that would just make even more people burned out on this subgame.
On 07/05/2018 10:20 AM, Corona wrote:
What about just resetting the economy (to the same state as when it was
enacted) while implementing Trigon's planned reforms?
~Corona
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
And yeah, not to do with paper, but on the Coins side I'm done
here.
I'll support a full repeal of this mess. Restraint is not something
that
everyone does well.
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Corona wrote:
I bid 32 coins in auction 1.
I bid 34 coins in auction 5.
~Corona
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:
I bid 32 coins in auction 5.
On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I bid 25 coins in auction 5.
On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
There are currently more public, unpreserved, non-aether land
units in
existence than I feel like counting. 5 land units of my choice
are
put
up for
auction.
For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the
auctioneer, and
the minimum bid is 1 coin, and the lots are as such:
AUCTION 1: the land unit at (-6, -1)
AUCTION 2: the land unit at (-6, +1)
AUCTION 3: the land unit at (-6, -2)
AUCTION 4: the land unit at (-6, +2)
AUCTION 5: the land unit at (+6, -1)
--
Trigon
--
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
Eh, mark me as someone who would be burned out.
It took - hmm, a few months play, a coin/corn bug, and a big payroll from
zombies to open up the board (for everyone) and get some land enough to get
to this point.
At this point - with several land - I'm starting to get into the worker
placement and currency budgeting part and it's kind of interesting. I'm
even willing to keep trying for a little bit as-is. But I'm not keen
enough to do a reset and go through all that again over months to get to
this point.
Now maybe your reforms would help substantially, but they're not play-tested.
If we could tweak in fast-time ("go through" enough rounds without taking
weeks to do so each time) we might find a set of rules that worked via
playtesting. Maybe doing auctions differently would help. But after
shinies and then this, I'm not really feeling the commitment to do economy
round#3 at Agora-speed while waiting for the inevitable crashing bugs.
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Reply-to is the worst.
>
> On 07/05/2018 10:33 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > As in resetting the map and giving everyone a welcome-package-sized amount
> > of resources and making a little spawn island? It might work, considering
> > that that reform plan was supposed to fix balancing issues. But also I think
> > that would just make even more people burned out on this subgame.
> >
> > On 07/05/2018 10:20 AM, Corona wrote:
> > > What about just resetting the economy (to the same state as when it was
> > > enacted) while implementing Trigon's planned reforms?
> > >
> > > ~Corona
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Kerim Aydin
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And yeah, not to do with paper, but on the Coins side I'm done
> > > > here.
> > > > I'll support a full repeal of this mess. Restraint is not something
> > > > that
> > > > everyone does well.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Corona wrote:
> > > > > I bid 32 coins in auction 1.
> > > > > I bid 34 coins in auction 5.
> > > > >
> > > > > ~Corona
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Kerim Aydin
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I bid 32 coins in auction 5.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > > > > > I bid 25 coins in auction 5.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > > > > > > There are currently more public, unpreserved, non-aether land
> > > > units in
> > > > > > > > existence than I feel like counting. 5 land units of my choice
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > put
> > > > > > up for
> > > > > > > > auction.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the
> > > > > > auctioneer, and
> > > > > > > > the minimum bid is 1 coin, and the lots are as such:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > AUCTION 1: the land unit at (-6, -1)
> > > > > > > > AUCTION 2: the land unit at (-6, +1)
> > > > > > > > AUCTION 3: the land unit at (-6, -2)
> > > > > > > > AUCTION 4: the land unit at (-6, +2)
> > > > > > > > AUCTION 5: the land unit at (+6, -1)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Trigon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
> --
> Trigon
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
I actually think it would be more frustrating to carry out the reforms _without_ a reset, because the reforms might ruin plans people had been forming or make their previous facility setup suboptimal. Someone (I think it was G.?) said a few days ago that e'd stop playing if the reforms passed. At least resetting the economy would ensure everybody started from an even footing. What exactly would need to be in a reset? Things I can think of off the top of my head: * Destroy all instances of currencies except blots and medals of honour * Destroy all facilities not owned by Agora * Set all unpreserved land units to aether * Move all players (and Q*Bert?) to (0, 0) * Cause all active players to receive a welcome package -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On July 5, 2018 4:33 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > Reply-to is the worst. > > On 07/05/2018 10:33 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > As in resetting the map and giving everyone a welcome-package-sized > > > > amount of resources and making a little spawn island? It might work, > > > > considering that that reform plan was supposed to fix balancing issues. > > > > But also I think that would just make even more people burned out on > > > > this subgame. > > > > On 07/05/2018 10:20 AM, Corona wrote: > > > > > What about just resetting the economy (to the same state as when it was > > > > > > enacted) while implementing Trigon's planned reforms? > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > And yeah, not to do with paper, but on the Coins side I'm done > > > > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > I'll support a full repeal of this mess. Restraint is not something > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > everyone does well. > > > > > > > > On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Corona wrote: > > > > > > > > > I bid 32 coins in auction 1. > > > > > > > > > > I bid 34 coins in auction 5. > > > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I bid 32 coins in auction 5. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I bid 25 coins in auction 5. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are currently more public, unpreserved, non-aether land > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > units in > > > > > > > > > > > > > existence than I feel like counting. 5 land units of my choice > > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > put > > > > > > > > > > > up for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > auction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > auctioneer, and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the minimum bid is 1 coin, and the lots are as such: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 1: the land unit at (-6, -1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 2: the land unit at (-6, +1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 3: the land unit at (-6, -2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 4: the land unit at (-6, +2) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 5: the land unit at (+6, -1) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Trigon > > -- > > Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
Reply-to is the worst. On 07/05/2018 10:33 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: As in resetting the map and giving everyone a welcome-package-sized amount of resources and making a little spawn island? It might work, considering that that reform plan was supposed to fix balancing issues. But also I think that would just make even more people burned out on this subgame. On 07/05/2018 10:20 AM, Corona wrote: What about just resetting the economy (to the same state as when it was enacted) while implementing Trigon's planned reforms? ~Corona On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: And yeah, not to do with paper, but on the Coins side I'm done here. I'll support a full repeal of this mess. Restraint is not something that everyone does well. On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Corona wrote: I bid 32 coins in auction 1. I bid 34 coins in auction 5. ~Corona On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I bid 32 coins in auction 5. On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: I bid 25 coins in auction 5. On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: There are currently more public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in existence than I feel like counting. 5 land units of my choice are put up for auction. For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the auctioneer, and the minimum bid is 1 coin, and the lots are as such: AUCTION 1: the land unit at (-6, -1) AUCTION 2: the land unit at (-6, +1) AUCTION 3: the land unit at (-6, -2) AUCTION 4: the land unit at (-6, +2) AUCTION 5: the land unit at (+6, -1) -- Trigon -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
What about just resetting the economy (to the same state as when it was enacted) while implementing Trigon's planned reforms? ~Corona On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > And yeah, not to do with paper, but on the Coins side I'm done > here. > I'll support a full repeal of this mess. Restraint is not something that > everyone does well. > > On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Corona wrote: > > I bid 32 coins in auction 1. > > I bid 34 coins in auction 5. > > > > ~Corona > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I bid 32 coins in auction 5. > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I bid 25 coins in auction 5. > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > > There are currently more public, unpreserved, non-aether land > units in > > > > > existence than I feel like counting. 5 land units of my choice are > put > > > up for > > > > > auction. > > > > > > > > > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the > > > auctioneer, and > > > > > the minimum bid is 1 coin, and the lots are as such: > > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 1: the land unit at (-6, -1) > > > > > AUCTION 2: the land unit at (-6, +1) > > > > > AUCTION 3: the land unit at (-6, -2) > > > > > AUCTION 4: the land unit at (-6, +2) > > > > > AUCTION 5: the land unit at (+6, -1) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Trigon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
And yeah, not to do with paper, but on the Coins side I'm done here. I'll support a full repeal of this mess. Restraint is not something that everyone does well. On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Corona wrote: > I bid 32 coins in auction 1. > I bid 34 coins in auction 5. > > ~Corona > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > I bid 32 coins in auction 5. > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I bid 25 coins in auction 5. > > > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > > There are currently more public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in > > > > existence than I feel like counting. 5 land units of my choice are put > > up for > > > > auction. > > > > > > > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the > > auctioneer, and > > > > the minimum bid is 1 coin, and the lots are as such: > > > > > > > > AUCTION 1: the land unit at (-6, -1) > > > > AUCTION 2: the land unit at (-6, +1) > > > > AUCTION 3: the land unit at (-6, -2) > > > > AUCTION 4: the land unit at (-6, +2) > > > > AUCTION 5: the land unit at (+6, -1) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Trigon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Free Proposals
The fact is, there is such a glut of paper that no one who is "playing" the minigame is bothering to try to produce it. It's not a barrier. It is, as you say, a "stop and think" barrier. That's a good thing. And it's not a requirement to "play" given that no one is using the paper to "play". You get a couple action points (paper) a month. More if you're an officer. Nothing to do with land, movement, bidding, any of that. That there's an elaborate minigame (that no one is using) to get more paper doesn't have to affect that at all. On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Perhaps we shouldn't have an "economy". Perhaps we should have a > mini-game that people play because they enjoy it. I don't see terribly > many people actively participating in the economy because they want > paper. At same time, I do see paper making the main game less fun for > players. If the economy isn't fun, people shouldn't be obliged to play > it. We all come here to have a good time and build a community. We > come because we want to interact with the rules. Coercing people into > a mini-game doesn't actually help anyone. Do you honestly believe that > we're having more fun with paper than without it? Do you think it's > really getting people into the mini game? Do you think that people who > play the mini game because they're forced into it will actually enjoy > it? How is coercing people into doing things they don't want to do > sensible, when Agora is a game and a nomic, where people play by > changing things, not by grinding for resources? And if they are "super > feels bad" and "unfun", if they don't serve to make people enjoy their > time here, why should we keep them? If the economy isn't something > people will play without coercion (mind you, I'm not asserting that > that's the case) why should we keep _it_? > > Basically, my idea is that people should play the economy to win and > for perks, but not as a requirement. Those reasons should prove > sufficient to encourage engagement, and if they aren't, that's a > problem we need to fix. Keeping paper around simply isn't doing anyone > any good. > > -Aris > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:19 AM Rebecca wrote: > > > > No, the economy shouldn't be optional. The only way to encourage engagement > > with it is to make it unoptional in some way, which it really isn't now. > > CFJs should always be free. Proposals can and should be interacted with. > > Paper is a super feels-bad unfun way to do it. Better, though, than nothing. > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Aris Merchant < > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Unless a consensus forms one way or the other, I'll implement your > > > paper removal suggestion in a separate proposal contingent on this one > > > passing. > > > > > > As for the economic argument, I disagree, for reasons I really should > > > have spelled out when submitting the proposal. The problem isn't that > > > people don't have enough paper. The problem is that people have to use > > > paper in the first place. When an action has a cost, someone is much > > > less likely to take it, even if the cost is actually relatively minor. > > > [1] [2] Every time I write a proposal, I think "Is this really worth > > > one of my two monthly papers?" I would write many more proposals if > > > that thought didn't enter my head. IIRC V.J. Rada has also mentioned > > > this problem. Look at CFJ calling rates before and after they became > > > free. I'll bet that they skyrocketed; I certainly know I've called > > > many more CFJs recently. A player shouldn't even have to think about a > > > cost when they pend a proposal. The limit of five isn't much of an > > > inconvenience, because a) it's huge; b) it resets every week; c) the > > > Promotor or another player can always pend a proposal for you, and has > > > every incentive to do so (right now it's pretty much charity if > > > someone does that); and d) it's not phrased as an economic cost. The > > > combination of those factors means that it feels less like a price, > > > and more like a tacked on limitation, which I for one would not > > > regularly worry about. > > > > > > I hope that my explanation and two proposal solution might be enough > > > to convince you to at least vote PRESENT? > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > [1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bestiary_of_Behavioral_ > > > Economics/Zero_Price > > > [2] https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/mini- > > > encyclopedia-of-be/zero-price-effect/ > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 11:21 PM Reuben Staley > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > This would be fine but it completely nullifies paper. A better way to do > > > > this while preserving the economy would be to get rid of paper and looms > > > > then add lumber to the list of unrefinable resources. Also, everyone > > > > gets > > > > paper once a month so participation in the economy is completely > > > > optional > > > > still. And if anyone somehow uses up all their paper, I can just give
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Free Proposals
Perhaps we shouldn't have an "economy". Perhaps we should have a mini-game that people play because they enjoy it. I don't see terribly many people actively participating in the economy because they want paper. At same time, I do see paper making the main game less fun for players. If the economy isn't fun, people shouldn't be obliged to play it. We all come here to have a good time and build a community. We come because we want to interact with the rules. Coercing people into a mini-game doesn't actually help anyone. Do you honestly believe that we're having more fun with paper than without it? Do you think it's really getting people into the mini game? Do you think that people who play the mini game because they're forced into it will actually enjoy it? How is coercing people into doing things they don't want to do sensible, when Agora is a game and a nomic, where people play by changing things, not by grinding for resources? And if they are "super feels bad" and "unfun", if they don't serve to make people enjoy their time here, why should we keep them? If the economy isn't something people will play without coercion (mind you, I'm not asserting that that's the case) why should we keep _it_? Basically, my idea is that people should play the economy to win and for perks, but not as a requirement. Those reasons should prove sufficient to encourage engagement, and if they aren't, that's a problem we need to fix. Keeping paper around simply isn't doing anyone any good. -Aris On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:19 AM Rebecca wrote: > > No, the economy shouldn't be optional. The only way to encourage engagement > with it is to make it unoptional in some way, which it really isn't now. > CFJs should always be free. Proposals can and should be interacted with. > Paper is a super feels-bad unfun way to do it. Better, though, than nothing. > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Unless a consensus forms one way or the other, I'll implement your > > paper removal suggestion in a separate proposal contingent on this one > > passing. > > > > As for the economic argument, I disagree, for reasons I really should > > have spelled out when submitting the proposal. The problem isn't that > > people don't have enough paper. The problem is that people have to use > > paper in the first place. When an action has a cost, someone is much > > less likely to take it, even if the cost is actually relatively minor. > > [1] [2] Every time I write a proposal, I think "Is this really worth > > one of my two monthly papers?" I would write many more proposals if > > that thought didn't enter my head. IIRC V.J. Rada has also mentioned > > this problem. Look at CFJ calling rates before and after they became > > free. I'll bet that they skyrocketed; I certainly know I've called > > many more CFJs recently. A player shouldn't even have to think about a > > cost when they pend a proposal. The limit of five isn't much of an > > inconvenience, because a) it's huge; b) it resets every week; c) the > > Promotor or another player can always pend a proposal for you, and has > > every incentive to do so (right now it's pretty much charity if > > someone does that); and d) it's not phrased as an economic cost. The > > combination of those factors means that it feels less like a price, > > and more like a tacked on limitation, which I for one would not > > regularly worry about. > > > > I hope that my explanation and two proposal solution might be enough > > to convince you to at least vote PRESENT? > > > > -Aris > > > > [1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bestiary_of_Behavioral_ > > Economics/Zero_Price > > [2] https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/mini- > > encyclopedia-of-be/zero-price-effect/ > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 11:21 PM Reuben Staley > > wrote: > > > > > > This would be fine but it completely nullifies paper. A better way to do > > > this while preserving the economy would be to get rid of paper and looms > > > then add lumber to the list of unrefinable resources. Also, everyone gets > > > paper once a month so participation in the economy is completely optional > > > still. And if anyone somehow uses up all their paper, I can just give you > > > some. Though that's not going to happen anytime soon because paper is > > being > > > consumed slower than it's being produced. All in all, there are quite a > > few > > > things wrong with this proposal that would prevent me from voting for it. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 23:58 Aris Merchant > gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I've gotten sick and tired of restrictions being placed on gameplay to > > > > force people into economies. I have no objection to the economy > > > > affecting ordinary play, but it should be truly optional. I love how > > > > these days people CFJ whenever they have a concern, without worrying > > > > about it cutting into their reserves. Proposals are a contribution to > > > > the game. Most of them try
DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Here's a draft. Attn. G. and twg: you have proposals you may wish to pend. -Aris --- I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the quorum is 5.0 [1], the voting method is AI-majority and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). [1] Quorum is provisional, and could actually be anywhere between 5.0 and 7.0. ID Author(s) AI Title Pender --- 8058* V.J. Rada 1.0 Medal of Honour Auctions V.J. Rada 8059* G. 1.0 honour is its own reward G. 8060* V.J. Rada 1.8 Notary-B-Gone V.J. Rada 8061+ Aris 1.0 Free ProposalsAris The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals: ID Author(s) AI Title --- pp1V.J. Rada 2.0IAR Writs Repeal pp2G. 1.0Land Grants pp3twg 2.0No undead courts pp4V.J. Rada 1.0Secret Auctions Legend: * : Proposal is pending. + : By publishing this report, and before any other action taken by sending this message, I pay a paper to pend the marked proposal. The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. // ID: 8058 Title: Medal of Honour Auctions Adoption index: 1.0 Author: V.J. Rada Co-authors: Amend rule 2529 "Medals of Honour" by replacing the second paragraph with "Beginning in the second Eastman Week of an Agoran Month and ending at the end of that Month, the Herald CAN initiate an auction for a Medal of Honour as the only lot. E SHALL do so in the second Eastman Week of that Month. For this auction, the announcer is the Herald, the minimum bid is 60 coins, and Agora is the auctioneer. Only eligible players are allowed to bid in such an Auction. // ID: 8059 Title: honour is its own reward Adoption index: 1.0 Author: G. Co-authors: Repeal Rule 2529 (Medals of Honour). [We've given it a good go, with both this and previously with Victory Elections. Straight-up vote-for-a-winner mechanisms just don't attract enough interest]. // ID: 8060 Title: Notary-B-Gone Adoption index: 1.8 Author: V.J. Rada Co-authors: Delete the last paragraph of rule 2450, "Pledges" // ID: 8061 Title: Free Proposals Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Change Rule 2445, "How to Pend a Proposal", to read in full: Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or "not pending" (default). Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" by announcement, but cannot use this method more than five times each week. The first five proposals pended by the Promotor of which e is not the author do not count against eir weekly limit. // ID: pp1 Title: IAR Writs Repeal Adoption index: 2.0 Author: V.J. Rada Co-authors: Remove the second paragraph of rule 2531 "Referee Accountability". // ID: pp2 Title: Land Grants Adoption index: 1.0 Author: G. Co-authors: Amend Rule 2003 (Actions in Arcadia) by adding the following list item at the end of the numbered list: 7. 3 apples to Stake a Land Claim on a specified land unit that is adjacent to the Entity's current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by Agora, if and only if e is active, has not staked a land claim in the current month, and has not won a land auction in the current or previous month. When e stakes a land claim, the unit's land type is set to the land type of eir choice, then is transferred to em, then e moves onto that unit. // ID: pp3 Title: No undead courts Adoption index: 2.0 Author: twg Co-authors: Amend rule 2532, "Zombies", by adding "initiate a Call for Judgement;" as a list item after "enter a contract, pledge, or other type of agreement;" Amend rule 991, "Calls for Judgement", to change "all players except the initiator and the person barred" to "all active players except the initiator and the person barred". // ID: pp4 Title: Secret Auctions Adoption index: 1.0 Author: V.J. Rada Co-authors: Rename rule
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Free Proposals
No, the economy shouldn't be optional. The only way to encourage engagement with it is to make it unoptional in some way, which it really isn't now. CFJs should always be free. Proposals can and should be interacted with. Paper is a super feels-bad unfun way to do it. Better, though, than nothing. On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Unless a consensus forms one way or the other, I'll implement your > paper removal suggestion in a separate proposal contingent on this one > passing. > > As for the economic argument, I disagree, for reasons I really should > have spelled out when submitting the proposal. The problem isn't that > people don't have enough paper. The problem is that people have to use > paper in the first place. When an action has a cost, someone is much > less likely to take it, even if the cost is actually relatively minor. > [1] [2] Every time I write a proposal, I think "Is this really worth > one of my two monthly papers?" I would write many more proposals if > that thought didn't enter my head. IIRC V.J. Rada has also mentioned > this problem. Look at CFJ calling rates before and after they became > free. I'll bet that they skyrocketed; I certainly know I've called > many more CFJs recently. A player shouldn't even have to think about a > cost when they pend a proposal. The limit of five isn't much of an > inconvenience, because a) it's huge; b) it resets every week; c) the > Promotor or another player can always pend a proposal for you, and has > every incentive to do so (right now it's pretty much charity if > someone does that); and d) it's not phrased as an economic cost. The > combination of those factors means that it feels less like a price, > and more like a tacked on limitation, which I for one would not > regularly worry about. > > I hope that my explanation and two proposal solution might be enough > to convince you to at least vote PRESENT? > > -Aris > > [1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bestiary_of_Behavioral_ > Economics/Zero_Price > [2] https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/mini- > encyclopedia-of-be/zero-price-effect/ > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 11:21 PM Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > > This would be fine but it completely nullifies paper. A better way to do > > this while preserving the economy would be to get rid of paper and looms > > then add lumber to the list of unrefinable resources. Also, everyone gets > > paper once a month so participation in the economy is completely optional > > still. And if anyone somehow uses up all their paper, I can just give you > > some. Though that's not going to happen anytime soon because paper is > being > > consumed slower than it's being produced. All in all, there are quite a > few > > things wrong with this proposal that would prevent me from voting for it. > > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 23:58 Aris Merchant gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I've gotten sick and tired of restrictions being placed on gameplay to > > > force people into economies. I have no objection to the economy > > > affecting ordinary play, but it should be truly optional. I love how > > > these days people CFJ whenever they have a concern, without worrying > > > about it cutting into their reserves. Proposals are a contribution to > > > the game. Most of them try to make gameplay better for everyone. We > > > should not discourage people from contributing; if anything, we should > > > reward them. > > > > > > This is deliberately minimal. I'm leaving paper in place to allow it > > > to be repurposed for something else. People should not spam proposals, > > > so my proposals allows five pends per week. The Promotor gets another > > > five for other people's proposals, on the assumption that e will use > > > them to pend proposals that players have forgotten to pend, or if > > > another player legitimately bumps into eir cap. > > > > > > I submit the following proposal. I'm going to pend it unless someone > > > finds a technical problem, or we decide on a better solution to the > > > paper situation. > > > > > > -Aris > > > --- > > > Title: Free Proposals > > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > > Author: Aris > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Change Rule 2445, "How to Pend a Proposal", to read in full: > > > > > > Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by > > > proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or > > > "not pending" (default). > > > > > > Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" > > > by announcement, but cannot use this method more than five times > > > each week. The first five proposals pended by the Promotor of which e > > > is not the author do not count against eir weekly limit. > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Free Proposals
Unless a consensus forms one way or the other, I'll implement your paper removal suggestion in a separate proposal contingent on this one passing. As for the economic argument, I disagree, for reasons I really should have spelled out when submitting the proposal. The problem isn't that people don't have enough paper. The problem is that people have to use paper in the first place. When an action has a cost, someone is much less likely to take it, even if the cost is actually relatively minor. [1] [2] Every time I write a proposal, I think "Is this really worth one of my two monthly papers?" I would write many more proposals if that thought didn't enter my head. IIRC V.J. Rada has also mentioned this problem. Look at CFJ calling rates before and after they became free. I'll bet that they skyrocketed; I certainly know I've called many more CFJs recently. A player shouldn't even have to think about a cost when they pend a proposal. The limit of five isn't much of an inconvenience, because a) it's huge; b) it resets every week; c) the Promotor or another player can always pend a proposal for you, and has every incentive to do so (right now it's pretty much charity if someone does that); and d) it's not phrased as an economic cost. The combination of those factors means that it feels less like a price, and more like a tacked on limitation, which I for one would not regularly worry about. I hope that my explanation and two proposal solution might be enough to convince you to at least vote PRESENT? -Aris [1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bestiary_of_Behavioral_Economics/Zero_Price [2] https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/zero-price-effect/ On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 11:21 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > > This would be fine but it completely nullifies paper. A better way to do > this while preserving the economy would be to get rid of paper and looms > then add lumber to the list of unrefinable resources. Also, everyone gets > paper once a month so participation in the economy is completely optional > still. And if anyone somehow uses up all their paper, I can just give you > some. Though that's not going to happen anytime soon because paper is being > consumed slower than it's being produced. All in all, there are quite a few > things wrong with this proposal that would prevent me from voting for it. > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 23:58 Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > I've gotten sick and tired of restrictions being placed on gameplay to > > force people into economies. I have no objection to the economy > > affecting ordinary play, but it should be truly optional. I love how > > these days people CFJ whenever they have a concern, without worrying > > about it cutting into their reserves. Proposals are a contribution to > > the game. Most of them try to make gameplay better for everyone. We > > should not discourage people from contributing; if anything, we should > > reward them. > > > > This is deliberately minimal. I'm leaving paper in place to allow it > > to be repurposed for something else. People should not spam proposals, > > so my proposals allows five pends per week. The Promotor gets another > > five for other people's proposals, on the assumption that e will use > > them to pend proposals that players have forgotten to pend, or if > > another player legitimately bumps into eir cap. > > > > I submit the following proposal. I'm going to pend it unless someone > > finds a technical problem, or we decide on a better solution to the > > paper situation. > > > > -Aris > > --- > > Title: Free Proposals > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > Change Rule 2445, "How to Pend a Proposal", to read in full: > > > > Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by > > proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or > > "not pending" (default). > > > > Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" > > by announcement, but cannot use this method more than five times > > each week. The first five proposals pended by the Promotor of which e > > is not the author do not count against eir weekly limit. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Free Proposals
Leaving the paper framework for a possible repurposing seems like a better idea to me. Nobody would make paper while it would be useless, so the economy would not be affected. ~Corona On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > This would be fine but it completely nullifies paper. A better way to do > this while preserving the economy would be to get rid of paper and looms > then add lumber to the list of unrefinable resources. Also, everyone gets > paper once a month so participation in the economy is completely optional > still. And if anyone somehow uses up all their paper, I can just give you > some. Though that's not going to happen anytime soon because paper is being > consumed slower than it's being produced. All in all, there are quite a few > things wrong with this proposal that would prevent me from voting for it. > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 23:58 Aris Merchant gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I've gotten sick and tired of restrictions being placed on gameplay to > > force people into economies. I have no objection to the economy > > affecting ordinary play, but it should be truly optional. I love how > > these days people CFJ whenever they have a concern, without worrying > > about it cutting into their reserves. Proposals are a contribution to > > the game. Most of them try to make gameplay better for everyone. We > > should not discourage people from contributing; if anything, we should > > reward them. > > > > This is deliberately minimal. I'm leaving paper in place to allow it > > to be repurposed for something else. People should not spam proposals, > > so my proposals allows five pends per week. The Promotor gets another > > five for other people's proposals, on the assumption that e will use > > them to pend proposals that players have forgotten to pend, or if > > another player legitimately bumps into eir cap. > > > > I submit the following proposal. I'm going to pend it unless someone > > finds a technical problem, or we decide on a better solution to the > > paper situation. > > > > -Aris > > --- > > Title: Free Proposals > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > Change Rule 2445, "How to Pend a Proposal", to read in full: > > > > Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by > > proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or > > "not pending" (default). > > > > Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" > > by announcement, but cannot use this method more than five times > > each week. The first five proposals pended by the Promotor of which e > > is not the author do not count against eir weekly limit. > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Free Proposals
The majority of people are not in danger of running out of paper, but sure, I'll support this. Paper _is_ rather difficult to manufacture, requiring two land units with facilities (orchard+mill), preferably also a third one (mine) for sustainability. ~Corona On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 7:57 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've gotten sick and tired of restrictions being placed on gameplay to > force people into economies. I have no objection to the economy > affecting ordinary play, but it should be truly optional. I love how > these days people CFJ whenever they have a concern, without worrying > about it cutting into their reserves. Proposals are a contribution to > the game. Most of them try to make gameplay better for everyone. We > should not discourage people from contributing; if anything, we should > reward them. > > This is deliberately minimal. I'm leaving paper in place to allow it > to be repurposed for something else. People should not spam proposals, > so my proposals allows five pends per week. The Promotor gets another > five for other people's proposals, on the assumption that e will use > them to pend proposals that players have forgotten to pend, or if > another player legitimately bumps into eir cap. > > I submit the following proposal. I'm going to pend it unless someone > finds a technical problem, or we decide on a better solution to the > paper situation. > > -Aris > --- > Title: Free Proposals > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > Change Rule 2445, "How to Pend a Proposal", to read in full: > > Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by > proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or > "not pending" (default). > > Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" > by announcement, but cannot use this method more than five times > each week. The first five proposals pended by the Promotor of which e > is not the author do not count against eir weekly limit. >
DIS: Re: BUS: Free Proposals
This would be fine but it completely nullifies paper. A better way to do this while preserving the economy would be to get rid of paper and looms then add lumber to the list of unrefinable resources. Also, everyone gets paper once a month so participation in the economy is completely optional still. And if anyone somehow uses up all their paper, I can just give you some. Though that's not going to happen anytime soon because paper is being consumed slower than it's being produced. All in all, there are quite a few things wrong with this proposal that would prevent me from voting for it. On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 23:58 Aris Merchant wrote: > I've gotten sick and tired of restrictions being placed on gameplay to > force people into economies. I have no objection to the economy > affecting ordinary play, but it should be truly optional. I love how > these days people CFJ whenever they have a concern, without worrying > about it cutting into their reserves. Proposals are a contribution to > the game. Most of them try to make gameplay better for everyone. We > should not discourage people from contributing; if anything, we should > reward them. > > This is deliberately minimal. I'm leaving paper in place to allow it > to be repurposed for something else. People should not spam proposals, > so my proposals allows five pends per week. The Promotor gets another > five for other people's proposals, on the assumption that e will use > them to pend proposals that players have forgotten to pend, or if > another player legitimately bumps into eir cap. > > I submit the following proposal. I'm going to pend it unless someone > finds a technical problem, or we decide on a better solution to the > paper situation. > > -Aris > --- > Title: Free Proposals > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > Change Rule 2445, "How to Pend a Proposal", to read in full: > > Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by > proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or > "not pending" (default). > > Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" > by announcement, but cannot use this method more than five times > each week. The first five proposals pended by the Promotor of which e > is not the author do not count against eir weekly limit. >
