Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On Friday, 12 June 2020, 08:51:06 GMT+1, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > I am EXTREMELY wary of extra vote mechanisms but I've never seen > large-scale pooling on Agora like on Blognomic so perhaps it's not a > problem. Maybe. Pools of 3 have historically been fairly common, and of 4 have happened on rare occasions. Agoran pooling is nearly always of the "timing scam" variety, though (i.e. you hide the fact that the pool exists until the last moment so that the pooling to require fewer resources, as the opponents' resources are split); BlogNomic's are a split between that and the "we're just richer than you" variety which is uncounterable even if you know about it. The basic reason is that Agora's economy doesn't reset on a win; this means that unless everyone in the pool wins as a result of the scam (e.g. you pool extra votes to force through a victory proposal), the pooling needs to be done using only one player's economic assets (because the other players will need to be bribed to participate if they have no prospect of winning, and the size of the bribe will obviously need to exceed those players' expenditures). At BlogNomic players are willing to compete for a chance of being randomly selected for a win, because their assets are about to reset anyway; at Agora, the stakes are higher. The reason multiple players are involved in a pool is thus not to pool economic assets, but to pool "once per player per proposal", "once per player per week", etc., actions (or else actions that can inherently only be performed by one particular player); these are things that are gone if you don't use them, so they're susceptible to pooling in the same way as BlogNomic's economic assets. (For example, one pool that I remember involved three players each setting their voting power to 8, to force through a proposal that would give them a dictatorship; there was a rule capping each players' votes-per-proposal at 8 even when extra-vote assets were used, so three players were needed to get enough voting power.) Historically, though, the main barrier to direct pooling scams for dictatorships was a rule titled "Support Democracy" (which has since been repealed). It allowed any player, with 2 support, to make a particular proposal immune from interference such as vote manipulation and vote boosting. Players generally didn't do this unless they suspected a scam was brewing, so it added a huge amount of skill to pooling-based scams, meaning that you had to write a proposal that would slip under the Support Democracy radar in order to be able to land a voting-based pooling timing scam (and speaking as a Scamster myself, it was fun doing that). IIRC G. got eir patent title of Cassandra from spotting one such scam, but being unable to gather the requisite support to trigger Support Democracy. If we do want to bring back extra vote mechanisms, we should probably bring back Support Democracy at the same time (but possibly with a cost additional to the 2 support, e.g. a Pendant, in order to prevent players using a contract to just democratise everything). -- ais523
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On 6/12/20 11:03 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:57 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 6/12/2020 11:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via >> agora-discussion wrote: > That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly > encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one > then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for > someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed > to enable. > Oh yeah, didn't think about that. The next draft will definitely allow contracts to own them. >>> Letting contracts own them will preclude the use of an ownership >>> restriction. >> What do you mean? can't I just say "amulets can be owned by players or >> contracts"? > That will work. I just meant that a clause prohibiting anyone from > owning more than one amulet would no longer have much impact. Could add a cooldown to equipping amulets instead of trying to limit how many they can own. -- nch Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:57 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/12/2020 11:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-discussion wrote: > >>> That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly > >>> encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one > >>> then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for > >>> someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed > >>> to enable. > >>> > >> Oh yeah, didn't think about that. The next draft will definitely allow > >> contracts to own them. > > Letting contracts own them will preclude the use of an ownership > > restriction. > > What do you mean? can't I just say "amulets can be owned by players or > contracts"? That will work. I just meant that a clause prohibiting anyone from owning more than one amulet would no longer have much impact.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On 6/12/2020 11:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed to enable. Oh yeah, didn't think about that. The next draft will definitely allow contracts to own them. Letting contracts own them will preclude the use of an ownership restriction. What do you mean? can't I just say "amulets can be owned by players or contracts"?
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On 6/11/2020 9:31 PM, nch wrote: On 6/11/20 8:20 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type, effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be transferred. Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off. There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player CANNOT*put on* more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another amulet." Though that sounds awkward. What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping, using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns, but they still get a lot of power that way. Maybe just make it so a player can only own one amulet at a time? That would get rid of the whole "wearing" thing too. That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed to enable. Oh yeah, didn't think about that. The next draft will definitely allow contracts to own them.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:50 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/11/2020 9:31 PM, nch wrote: > > On 6/11/20 8:20 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: > Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which > can be > owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: > type, > effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the > amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. > > Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active > players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, > equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's > wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A > player > CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the > amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one > amulet at > a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be > transferred. > >>> Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a > >>> new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the > >>> Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a > >>> good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off. > >>> > >>> There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you > >>> define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier > >>> in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same > >>> time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact > >>> if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player > >>> CANNOT*put on* more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it > >>> to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another > >>> amulet." Though that sounds awkward. > >>> > >>> What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping, > >>> using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns, > >>> but they still get a lot of power that way. > >> Maybe just make it so a player can only own one amulet at a time? That > >> would get rid of the whole "wearing" thing too. > >> > > That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly > > encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one > > then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for > > someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed > > to enable. > > > > Oh yeah, didn't think about that. The next draft will definitely allow > contracts to own them. Letting contracts own them will preclude the use of an ownership restriction.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
I am EXTREMELY wary of extra vote mechanisms but I've never seen large-scale pooling on Agora like on Blognomic so perhap it's not a problem. Maybe. On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 3:32 AM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/11/20 8:20 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: > >>> Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which > can be > >>> owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: > type, > >>> effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the > >>> amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. > >>> > >>> Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active > >>> players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, > >>> equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's > >>> wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A > player > >>> CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the > >>> amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one > amulet at > >>> a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be > >>> transferred. > >> Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a > >> new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the > >> Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a > >> good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off. > >> > >> There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you > >> define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier > >> in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same > >> time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact > >> if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player > >> CANNOT*put on* more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it > >> to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another > >> amulet." Though that sounds awkward. > >> > >> What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping, > >> using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns, > >> but they still get a lot of power that way. > > Maybe just make it so a player can only own one amulet at a time? That > > would get rid of the whole "wearing" thing too. > > > That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly > encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one > then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for > someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed > to enable. > > -- > nch > Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager > > >
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On 6/11/20 8:20 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: >>> Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be >>> owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type, >>> effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the >>> amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. >>> >>> Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active >>> players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, >>> equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's >>> wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player >>> CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the >>> amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at >>> a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be >>> transferred. >> Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a >> new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the >> Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a >> good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off. >> >> There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you >> define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier >> in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same >> time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact >> if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player >> CANNOT*put on* more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it >> to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another >> amulet." Though that sounds awkward. >> >> What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping, >> using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns, >> but they still get a lot of power that way. > Maybe just make it so a player can only own one amulet at a time? That > would get rid of the whole "wearing" thing too. > That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed to enable. -- nch Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On 6/11/2020 9:26 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: On Jun 11, 2020, at 21:20, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/11/2020 7:41 PM, nch wrote: On 6/10/20 11:54 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 AI: 1.0 Author: ATMunn Co-author(s): Overall, I'm not sure I like this idea. This comes back to G. and I's discussion about farming. When you can create the items on your own, it destroys the trading aspect of the game. That said, you have a lot of limiters in here that are interesting and might mitigate that impact. I would vote AGAINST this for at least the first month or two of Sets, and maybe reconsider this later. It's too big of a change and seems to violate a fundamental goal of the economy's design (that trading should be important). That said, I'm just one voter, and here's some mechanical notes: Show Quoted Content On 6/11/2020 7:41 PM, nch wrote: On 6/10/20 11:54 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 AI: 1.0 Author: ATMunn Co-author(s): Overall, I'm not sure I like this idea. This comes back to G. and I's discussion about farming. When you can create the items on your own, it destroys the trading aspect of the game. That said, you have a lot of limiters in here that are interesting and might mitigate that impact. I would vote AGAINST this for at least the first month or two of Sets, and maybe reconsider this later. It's too big of a change and seems to violate a fundamental goal of the economy's design (that trading should be important). That said, I'm just one voter, and here's some mechanical notes: Fair enough. The point was actually to create a special commodity to encourage trading more, but auctions were the only way I could think of to get them into the gamestate. What about having it be an auction with cards where the bids are sets of cards submitted secretly to the auctioneer and then some hidden set of rules is used to score them? That sounds interesting. I'm not exactly sure how it would work but it would be unique and cool if we figured it out.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
> On Jun 11, 2020, at 21:20, ATMunn via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 6/11/2020 7:41 PM, nch wrote: >> On 6/10/20 11:54 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to > put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. > > Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 > AI: 1.0 > Author: ATMunn > Co-author(s): Overall, I'm not sure I like this idea. This comes back to G. and I's discussion about farming. When you can create the items on your own, it destroys the trading aspect of the game. That said, you have a lot of limiters in here that are interesting and might mitigate that impact. I would vote AGAINST this for at least the first month or two of Sets, and maybe reconsider this later. It's too big of a change and seems to violate a fundamental goal of the economy's design (that trading should be important). That said, I'm just one voter, and here's some mechanical notes: >>> >>> Show Quoted Content On 6/11/2020 7:41 PM, nch wrote: > On 6/10/20 11:54 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 AI: 1.0 Author: ATMunn Co-author(s): >>> Overall, I'm not sure I like this idea. This comes back to G. and I's >>> discussion about farming. When you can create the items on your own, it >>> destroys the trading aspect of the game. That said, you have a lot of >>> limiters in here that are interesting and might mitigate that impact. >>> I would vote AGAINST this for at least the first month or two of Sets, >>> and maybe reconsider this later. It's too big of a change and seems to >>> violate a fundamental goal of the economy's design (that trading should >>> be important). That said, I'm just one voter, and here's some mechanical >>> notes: > > Fair enough. The point was actually to create a special commodity to > encourage trading more, but auctions were the only way I could think of to > get them into the gamestate. What about having it be an auction with cards where the bids are sets of cards submitted secretly to the auctioneer and then some hidden set of rules is used to score them? Selecting things to quote it is a very useful feature: thanks for bringing it to my attention!
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On 6/11/2020 7:41 PM, nch wrote: On 6/10/20 11:54 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 AI: 1.0 Author: ATMunn Co-author(s): Overall, I'm not sure I like this idea. This comes back to G. and I's discussion about farming. When you can create the items on your own, it destroys the trading aspect of the game. That said, you have a lot of limiters in here that are interesting and might mitigate that impact. I would vote AGAINST this for at least the first month or two of Sets, and maybe reconsider this later. It's too big of a change and seems to violate a fundamental goal of the economy's design (that trading should be important). That said, I'm just one voter, and here's some mechanical notes: Fair enough. The point was actually to create a special commodity to encourage trading more, but auctions were the only way I could think of to get them into the gamestate. It is probably a good idea to wait a little bit before introducing it. I just put this out there because I had the idea and didn't want to forget about it. Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type, effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be transferred. Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off. There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player CANNOT *put on* more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another amulet." Though that sounds awkward. What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping, using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns, but they still get a lot of power that way. Maybe just make it so a player can only own one amulet at a time? That would get rid of the whole "wearing" thing too. If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be passive, then the effect takes place for as long as it is worn by a player. If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be active, then the wearer of the amulet CAN activate it, causing its effect to occur. Active amulets have a cooldown attribute, which unless specified otherwise, is 7 days after the time the amulet was most recently activated. Attempts to activate an amulet during its cooldown are INEFFECTIVE, even if the amulet's wearer has changed. If an amulet has existed for at least 3 months, and/or it is an active amulet and has been activated 5 or more times, it is considered to be expired. Expired amulets have no effect and CANNOT be activated. Any player CAN destroy an expired amulet by announcement. Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulet Types" with the following text: The following is a list of tier-1 amulet types and their effects: - Amulet of Victory (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Victory Point. - Amulet of Justice (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Blot-B-Gone. - Amulet of Legislation (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Pendant. - Amulet of Voting (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns an Extra Vote. - Amulet of Economy (passive): Every Payday, the wearer of this amulet earns an additional 10 coins. Making these passive makes them actually very powerful. One of these gives you 12 products by the time is expires, which is more
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On 6/11/20 2:38 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > This has a lot in common with G.'s "stones" proto. Last posted in > September, I think: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-September/055498.html > > I thought the rules about stones escaping were fun. Also, there were > some creative kinds of stone which you might want to combine with your > list. Oh yeah, I still want to see stones happen (although this is probably a bad time...). -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
On 6/10/20 11:54 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to > put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. > > Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 > AI: 1.0 > Author: ATMunn > Co-author(s): Overall, I'm not sure I like this idea. This comes back to G. and I's discussion about farming. When you can create the items on your own, it destroys the trading aspect of the game. That said, you have a lot of limiters in here that are interesting and might mitigate that impact. I would vote AGAINST this for at least the first month or two of Sets, and maybe reconsider this later. It's too big of a change and seems to violate a fundamental goal of the economy's design (that trading should be important). That said, I'm just one voter, and here's some mechanical notes: > > Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: > Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be > owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type, > effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the > amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. > > Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active > players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, > equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's > wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player > CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the > amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at > a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be > transferred. Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off. There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player CANNOT *put on* more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another amulet." Though that sounds awkward. What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping, using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns, but they still get a lot of power that way. > > If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be passive, > then the effect takes place for as long as it is worn by a player. > If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be active, > then the wearer of the amulet CAN activate it, causing its effect to > occur. Active amulets have a cooldown attribute, which unless > specified otherwise, is 7 days after the time the amulet was most > recently activated. Attempts to activate an amulet during its > cooldown are INEFFECTIVE, even if the amulet's wearer has changed. > > If an amulet has existed for at least 3 months, and/or it is an > active amulet and has been activated 5 or more times, it is > considered to be expired. Expired amulets have no effect and CANNOT > be activated. Any player CAN destroy an expired amulet by > announcement. > > Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulet Types" with the following text: > The following is a list of tier-1 amulet types and their effects: > > - Amulet of Victory (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, > the wearer of this amulet earns a Victory Point. > > - Amulet of Justice (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, > the wearer of this amulet earns a Blot-B-Gone. > > - Amulet of Legislation (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran > week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Pendant. > > - Amulet of Voting (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, > the wearer of this amulet earns an Extra Vote. > > - Amulet of Economy (passive): Every Payday, the wearer of this > amulet earns an additional 10 coins. Making these passive makes them actually very powerful. One of these gives you 12 products by the time is expires, which is more than you get from 4 cards. > > The following is a list of tier-2 amulet types and their effects: > > - Amulet of Drawing (passive): The wearer of this amulet CAN specify > at any time, by announcement, a type of card e wishes to earn from > this amulet. At the beginning of each Agoran week, e earns one of > that type of card. If no type is specified, the type defaults to >
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
> I also contributed three stone videos in the original thread in May > 2019 (subject "the end never games"): s/videos/ideas/ Not sure how that happened. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
> > This has a lot in common with G.'s "stones" proto. Last posted in > > September, I think: > > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-September/055498.html > > > > I thought the rules about stones escaping were fun. Also, there were > > some creative kinds of stone which you might want to combine with your > > list. > > Ooh, this is definitely interesting. I will probably steal-er, take some > inspiration from some of these ideas. I also contributed three stone videos in the original thread in May 2019 (subject "the end never games"): Duplicity Stone (monthly, 50%): Specify a player and a contract they are party to. The player ceases to be a party to the contract. Sloth Stone (monthly, 70%): Wielding the stone fulfills all of the wielder's monthly duties, except any duty to publish a Collection Notice. Stone of Obligation (weekly, 25%): Specify a player. That player MUST perform The Ritual in the following Agoran week. (I'm not sure if this works, since the stone's power reverts to 0 after wielding.) (The last one doesn't make sense under the current ruleset. "Collection Notice" is a Stonekeepor duty.) - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
thank you for actually making some comments on this, i was beginning to get concerned that it would just get overlooked :) On 6/11/2020 2:38 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. This has a lot in common with G.'s "stones" proto. Last posted in September, I think: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-September/055498.html I thought the rules about stones escaping were fun. Also, there were some creative kinds of stone which you might want to combine with your list. Ooh, this is definitely interesting. I will probably steal-er, take some inspiration from some of these ideas. Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 AI: 1.0 Author: ATMunn Co-author(s): Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type, effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be transferred. If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be passive, then the effect takes place for as long as it is worn by a player. If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be active, then the wearer of the amulet CAN activate it, causing its effect to This CAN needs a method. Also this is in conflict with the last paragraph about expired amulets (though it's clear the last paragraph is intended to override it). occur. Active amulets have a cooldown attribute, which unless specified otherwise, is 7 days after the time the amulet was most recently activated. Attempts to activate an amulet during its cooldown are INEFFECTIVE, even if the amulet's wearer has changed. If an amulet has existed for at least 3 months, and/or it is an active amulet and has been activated 5 or more times, it is considered to be expired. Expired amulets have no effect and CANNOT be activated. Any player CAN destroy an expired amulet by announcement. Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulet Types" with the following text: The following is a list of tier-1 amulet types and their effects: - Amulet of Victory (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Victory Point. This is pretty powerful compared to G.'s proposal of auctioning card per week. I think it's roughly equivalent to winning half those auctions for free. Yeah, I felt like these were a bit too powerful. Maybe a card a month for 6 months? I may also implement something like G.'s "escaping" mechanism instead of a set lifespan; that might fix the problem. - Amulet of Justice (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Blot-B-Gone. - Amulet of Legislation (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Pendant. - Amulet of Voting (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, the wearer of this amulet earns an Extra Vote. - Amulet of Economy (passive): Every Payday, the wearer of this amulet earns an additional 10 coins. The following is a list of tier-2 amulet types and their effects: - Amulet of Drawing (passive): The wearer of this amulet CAN specify at any time, by announcement, a type of card e wishes to earn from this amulet. At the beginning of each Agoran week, e earns one of that type of card. If no type is specified, the type defaults to Victory Cards. The wearer MAY change the type of card specified, even if e has already earned cards of a different type. - Amulet of Influence (active): Upon activation, the wearer's voting strength on any one proposal that e specifies is increased by two. Jason suggestedout last month that voting strength is evaluated continuously, and instantaneous changes like this won't do anything. Thread: "Sets v0.9" https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-May/057669.html G.'s stones proto had the same problem. Sets v1.4 amends R2422 to explicitly cover the case of paying an Extra Vote. Maybe you could piggy-back on that by using the Buy Strength action? That might work. I'll look into
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
> I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to > put together a proto-proposal to see what others think. This has a lot in common with G.'s "stones" proto. Last posted in September, I think: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-September/055498.html I thought the rules about stones escaping were fun. Also, there were some creative kinds of stone which you might want to combine with your list. > Title: Amulets ver. 0.1 > AI: 1.0 > Author: ATMunn > Co-author(s): > > Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: > Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be > owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type, > effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the > amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. > > Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active > players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, > equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's > wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player > CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the > amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at > a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be > transferred. > > If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be passive, > then the effect takes place for as long as it is worn by a player. > If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be active, > then the wearer of the amulet CAN activate it, causing its effect to This CAN needs a method. Also this is in conflict with the last paragraph about expired amulets (though it's clear the last paragraph is intended to override it). > occur. Active amulets have a cooldown attribute, which unless > specified otherwise, is 7 days after the time the amulet was most > recently activated. Attempts to activate an amulet during its > cooldown are INEFFECTIVE, even if the amulet's wearer has changed. > > If an amulet has existed for at least 3 months, and/or it is an > active amulet and has been activated 5 or more times, it is > considered to be expired. Expired amulets have no effect and CANNOT > be activated. Any player CAN destroy an expired amulet by > announcement. > > Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulet Types" with the following text: > The following is a list of tier-1 amulet types and their effects: > > - Amulet of Victory (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, >the wearer of this amulet earns a Victory Point. This is pretty powerful compared to G.'s proposal of auctioning card per week. I think it's roughly equivalent to winning half those auctions for free. > - Amulet of Justice (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, >the wearer of this amulet earns a Blot-B-Gone. > > - Amulet of Legislation (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran >week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Pendant. > > - Amulet of Voting (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week, >the wearer of this amulet earns an Extra Vote. > > - Amulet of Economy (passive): Every Payday, the wearer of this >amulet earns an additional 10 coins. > > The following is a list of tier-2 amulet types and their effects: > > - Amulet of Drawing (passive): The wearer of this amulet CAN specify >at any time, by announcement, a type of card e wishes to earn from >this amulet. At the beginning of each Agoran week, e earns one of >that type of card. If no type is specified, the type defaults to >Victory Cards. The wearer MAY change the type of card specified, >even if e has already earned cards of a different type. > > - Amulet of Influence (active): Upon activation, the wearer's voting >strength on any one proposal that e specifies is increased by two. Jason suggestedout last month that voting strength is evaluated continuously, and instantaneous changes like this won't do anything. Thread: "Sets v0.9" https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-May/057669.html G.'s stones proto had the same problem. Sets v1.4 amends R2422 to explicitly cover the case of paying an Extra Vote. Maybe you could piggy-back on that by using the Buy Strength action? - Falsifian
DIS: [Proto-proposal] Amulets
I've been rattling this idea around in my mind for a bit. I decided to
put together a proto-proposal to see what others think.
Title: Amulets ver. 0.1
AI: 1.0
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s):
Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text:
Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which can be
owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: type,
effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the
amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules.
Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active
players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on,
equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's
wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A player
CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the
amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one amulet at
a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be
transferred.
If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be passive,
then the effect takes place for as long as it is worn by a player.
If the rules define the effect of a type of amulet to be active,
then the wearer of the amulet CAN activate it, causing its effect to
occur. Active amulets have a cooldown attribute, which unless
specified otherwise, is 7 days after the time the amulet was most
recently activated. Attempts to activate an amulet during its
cooldown are INEFFECTIVE, even if the amulet's wearer has changed.
If an amulet has existed for at least 3 months, and/or it is an
active amulet and has been activated 5 or more times, it is
considered to be expired. Expired amulets have no effect and CANNOT
be activated. Any player CAN destroy an expired amulet by
announcement.
Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulet Types" with the following text:
The following is a list of tier-1 amulet types and their effects:
- Amulet of Victory (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week,
the wearer of this amulet earns a Victory Point.
- Amulet of Justice (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week,
the wearer of this amulet earns a Blot-B-Gone.
- Amulet of Legislation (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran
week, the wearer of this amulet earns a Pendant.
- Amulet of Voting (passive): At the beginning of each Agoran week,
the wearer of this amulet earns an Extra Vote.
- Amulet of Economy (passive): Every Payday, the wearer of this
amulet earns an additional 10 coins.
The following is a list of tier-2 amulet types and their effects:
- Amulet of Drawing (passive): The wearer of this amulet CAN specify
at any time, by announcement, a type of card e wishes to earn from
this amulet. At the beginning of each Agoran week, e earns one of
that type of card. If no type is specified, the type defaults to
Victory Cards. The wearer MAY change the type of card specified,
even if e has already earned cards of a different type.
- Amulet of Influence (active): Upon activation, the wearer's voting
strength on any one proposal that e specifies is increased by two.
- Amulet of Pending (active): Upon activation, the Pended switch of
any specified proposal is flipped to True.
The following is a list of tier-3 amulet types and their effects:
- Ultimate Amulet (active): Upon activation, the wearer earns any 3
cards of eir choice. The cards chosen can be all the same type or
different.
Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulet Auctions" with the following text:
Each tier of amulet has an "ideal number" of that tier of amulet
that should be maintained in existence. The ideal number of tier-1
amulets is 7; the ideal number of tier-2 amulets is 4; and the ideal
number of tier-3 amulets is 1.
If there are fewer amulets of at least one amulet tier in existence
than that tier's ideal number, then the Treasuror CAN initiate an
auction for new amulets ("amulet auction") if e has not already done
so in the current month. The Treasuror SHALL do so in a timely
fashion after the beginning of the month if e is able to do so.
The lots of an amulet auction shall be determined as follows: For
each tier of amulet, if the number of amulets of that tier in
existence is lower than the ideal number of that tier of amulets, a
lot will contain a new amulet of any type in that tier.
In addition, if the number of tier-1 amulets in existence is less
than the ideal number of tier-1 amulets by at least two, an
additional lot for a tier-1 amulet shall be created.
When choosing amulet types for amulet auctions, the Treasuror SHOULD
avoid creating more than two of the same type of amulet. E SHOULD
choose amulet types that are not currently in existence, if
possible.
[Potential issues with
