DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8700-8716
On Sun, Jul 3, 2022 at 12:41 PM secretsnail9 via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8700~ 4st 2.0Well, it's not doing anything. FOR (so what if this makes proposal distribution weird, it's still not doing anything) > 8701~ 4st 2.0Welp, that doesn't do anything FOR > 8702~ 4st 2.1Writing on the Blank Stone FOR > 8703~ 4st 2.0Ticking Stone FOR > 8704~ 4st 2.0Tasty Stone FOR > 8705~ secretsnail 1.0Fixing Unfortunate Timing AGAINST (I'd love to be able to catch up!) > 8706~ secretsnail 1.5Let them have points FOR > 8707~ Jason 3.0No, we really mean it FOR > 8708~ nix ... [1] 3.0Has Beens FOR (this seems like the right thing to do) > 8709~ secretsnail 2.2Promises Any vs Each AGAINST (why promises have to have multiple conditions?) > 8710~ Jason, secretsnail 3.0Tabled action clarification FOR > 8711~ Jason 3.0Tabled action condition ambiguity AGAINST (why actions have multiple conditions to do?) > 8712~ secretsnail 1.0Stacking Stones v1.1 PRESENT (I'm not playing stones, but this seems OP to me) > 8713~ secretsnail 1.0Pebble Throwing FOR (somewhat, a little, fixes stone stacking if that ends up existing). > 8714~ Jason 1.0Vote scoring clarification FOR (seems like this solves some potential scam) > 8715~ Jason 3.0Proposal protection AGAINST (let Agora get ossified. it's fine, and it probably won't happen because of this reason.) > 8716~ 4st ... [2] 1.0Dream of Wandering FOR
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Normalize ribbons
On 7/3/22 18:09, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing "qualifies for" with "earns" in > the methods of obtaining these types of Ribbon: Green (G), Platinum (P), > Lime (L), Transparent (T). Qualification is for continuous conditions while earns is for instantaneous ones. I think the effects are limited because we don't have glitter, but this would make the qualification for Platinum/Green/Transparent extend for 7 days beyond when the condition was fulfilled, which would have implications for Transparent. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Magical Substrate
Jason wrote: At the beginning of each week, each player who intended to change eir Magic Levels, announces the values of what they were changing eir Magic Levels to. A player that fails to do so by the end of the week fails to intend to change eir magic levels. Players only announce things by sending messages. I recommend avoiding any attempt to overload the terminology used for tabled actions (until/unless they're amended to directly address these variants), and instead just directly stating what's effective. Here's a suggested revision, starting with defining "public secret": A public secret is a public message purporting to include an encrypted form (the Cipher) of some other text (the Plaintext). A verification of a public secret is a public message clearly identifying that public secret and including its Plaintext, provided that it could not reasonably have different Plaintext. A secure public secret is a public secret whose Plaintext cannot reasonably be derived from its Cipher alone. [Example: Plaintext is "Enchantment 1, Conjuration 3, Illusion 5" followed by some arbitrary GUID; Cipher is the SHA hash of that combined text. The "provided that" clause rules out things like one-time pads. "Secure" is defined separately so that other rules can decide whether it's relevant to require it in a given context.] If a player announced a public secret during one week (the Magic Studying Period) and verified it during the following week (the Magic Practicing Period), then at the end of that Magic Practicing Period, each of eir Magic Levels is simultaneously flipped as specified in the Plaintext.
DIS: Re: BUS: Magical Substrate
On 7/3/22 14:11, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> (I want a complex subgame, for that, I think we need
> to start with setting some sort of substrate for it.
> I generally endorse further modification of the following.)
>
> I submit the following proposal:
> {
> Title: Rock Paper Scissors Magic
> Adoption Index: 1.0
> Author: 4st
> Co-author(s):
>
> Enact a new rule with power=1.0 titled "Magic Levels"
> with the following text:
> {
> The Witchor is an office.
> Enchantment (Level), Conjuration (Level), and Illusion (Level)
> are secured non-negative Integer player switches tracked by the Witchor.
Please pick a single name, don't put parentheticals in switch names.
Also, "natural player switch", and there's very little point in securing
something at power-1.
> Unless otherwise modified or changed, these switches' default value is
> 3.
"[...] switches tracked by the Witchor, defaulting to 3".
> Colliqually, these are a player's Magic Levels.
This is more of a style preference, but I don't think it's a good idea
to say something is "colloquial" in the rules. If it's in the rules,
it's not colloquial by definition.
> Each player CAN, by announcement, change eir Magic Levels, ONCE
> each week. A player that attempts to change eir Magic Levels
> more than once a week fails to intend to change eir Magic Levels.
> The values of what a player intends to change eir Magic Levels to
> CAN be a public secret. (See the ACORN on Secret Auctions)
No need to capitalize "ONCE".
Not clear whether this is supposed to be an instantaneous change or a
buffered change like planning to flip.
You never define "public secret".
The "ACORN" is an informal name and shouldn't be used in rules text. If
you want regulations, their enactment needs to be authorized under a
promulgator.
> Colliqually, this is the Magic Studying Period.
Again, it's not colloquial if it's defined in rules text.
> At the beginning of each week, each player who intended to change
> eir Magic Levels, announces the values of what they were
> changing eir Magic Levels to.
> A player that fails to do so by the end of the week fails to intend
> to change eir magic levels.
Players only announce things by sending messages.
> Colliqually, this is the Magic Practicing Period.
Same issue.
> At the beginning of the next week, a player's Magic Levels
> are flipped to the values they intended to change eir Magic Levels to
> during the most recent Magic Practicing Period.
Should probably have a "simultaneously" here.
> In a non-binding way, this rule makes the 3 following numbered
> suggestions related to Magic Levels:
> 1. Enchantment should be stronger than Conjuration.
> 2. Conjuration should be stronger than Illusion.
> 3. Illusion should be stronger than Enchantment.
> }
I see no benefit to having this in rules text. If this is just good
strategy, it will be figured out by players themselves. Also,
"non-binding" suggestions should use "SHOULD" rather than this more
verbose formulation.
> Enact the following rule with power=1.0
> titled "Constant Magic Output" with the text:
> {
> The sum of a player's Magic Levels MUST be 9.
> If the sum of a player's Magic Levels are NOT 9,
> each of the player's Magic Levels are flipped to 3.
> }
This should not use "MUST", which suggests a requirement on pain of
blots. Just "If the sum of a player's Magic Level values is ever not 9,
each of eir Magic Level switches is flipped to its default value."
should work.
Also, I don't really see a reason for this to be in its own rule.
--
Jason Cobb
Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
