Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On 6/19/2020 3:27 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:25 PM nch wrote: >> On 6/18/20 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: -Is 10 coins a good fee for Drawing? >>> I don't think we can answer this right now, and in response to another >>> proposal I think both nch and I said "let's let the value find itself >>> before fixing it with card buys" (hope that's not twisting your words >>> nch). So I'd hesitate to vote for something like this until we played >> for >>> a month or so to answer this question. >> >> Agreed. If we set any flat prices, we should ensure they're just a >> little overpriced from market value. Otherwise they undermine trading. >> We don't know what market value is yet, so let's wait to see. > > > Might make sense to allow the responsible officer to set it by regulation > or whatever, with a SHOULD directing em to keep it above fair market value. > That way it can be revised as changes occur in the market. But none of this > works until we know what the initial market value is. Was actually wondering whether the Dealor might serve as an independent check on currency supply, by giving em the ability to destroy cards in the deck to get circulation to within some regulatory target, or something like that (again, something for after the market floats as-is for a while). -G.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 3:25 PM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/18/20 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > >> -Is 10 coins a good fee for Drawing? > > I don't think we can answer this right now, and in response to another > > proposal I think both nch and I said "let's let the value find itself > > before fixing it with card buys" (hope that's not twisting your words > > nch). So I'd hesitate to vote for something like this until we played > for > > a month or so to answer this question. > > Agreed. If we set any flat prices, we should ensure they're just a > little overpriced from market value. Otherwise they undermine trading. > We don't know what market value is yet, so let's wait to see. Might make sense to allow the responsible officer to set it by regulation or whatever, with a SHOULD directing em to keep it above fair market value. That way it can be revised as changes occur in the market. But none of this works until we know what the initial market value is. -Aris
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On 6/18/20 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> -Is 10 coins a good fee for Drawing? > I don't think we can answer this right now, and in response to another > proposal I think both nch and I said "let's let the value find itself > before fixing it with card buys" (hope that's not twisting your words > nch). So I'd hesitate to vote for something like this until we played for > a month or so to answer this question. Agreed. If we set any flat prices, we should ensure they're just a little overpriced from market value. Otherwise they undermine trading. We don't know what market value is yet, so let's wait to see. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On 6/19/20 4:59 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-06-19 09:04, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: >> I definitely don't want two officers to have to track the same thing. It >> might work best to just have the Dealor track all cards like P.S.S. is >> saying here. > Here's the thing with that: if the Treasuror still has to track > Products, then players would have to bounce between two reports that > were probably published at different times to get the full picture about > the cards and products everyone owns. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice > to have some help, but I don't think having another office track the > cards is a very good solution. I think assets should all be tracked by one officer, because it's important to have snapshots that represent your entire holdings. If it gets split between multiple offices and those offices publish their reports on different days, there's never any day when we have consensus on the entirety of everyone's ownership. Of course, handling the logistics of asset ownership is always a big issue with economies. One way we can deal with this is ensuring that we have a limited and solid number of words we accept as valid for asset creation, destruction, and transfer - that makes it easier for the officer (and others) to find all valid such actions. If the H. Treasuror has any other suggestions or requests for keeping things sane for em, I'd be happy to assist. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On 2020-06-19 09:04, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: I definitely don't want two officers to have to track the same thing. It might work best to just have the Dealor track all cards like P.S.S. is saying here. Here's the thing with that: if the Treasuror still has to track Products, then players would have to bounce between two reports that were probably published at different times to get the full picture about the cards and products everyone owns. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have some help, but I don't think having another office track the cards is a very good solution. -- Trigon Treasuror of Agora; Former Speaker (twice), Rulekeepor (12 months) and Cartographor (8 months) of Agora; Champion of Agora by High Score and Proposal; Bearer of the Badge of the Salted Earth; Founder of the League of Agorans Facilitating Effective Recordkeeping; Arcadian Revivalist; Sixth-Longest Continually Registered Player of Agora; Player and former Emperor of BlogNomic; Player, Book-keeper, and Originator of the Metaruleset of Infinite Nomic; Contributor to the nomic.club wiki and the Talk:Nomic page on Wikipedia.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On 6/19/2020 5:51 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/18/20 11:22 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 20:37, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: Here's a proto-proposal I came up with somewhat on the spot. Opinions welcome. Title: The Deck AI: 1.0 Author: ATMunn Co-author(s): Enact a power-1 rule entitled "The Deck" with the following text: The Deck is an entity. The Deck CAN own Cards, but no other types of assets. If the Deck owns at least one Card, any player CAN pay 10 coins to Draw a Card. When a player does so, the Dealor CAN by announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, transfer a Card from the Deck to the player who Drew a Card. The Dealor SHALL make the choice of which card to transfer randomly, with the probability of each type of Card being exactly proportional to the number of that Card that the Deck owns. Failure to use random chance in this transfer is the Class-2 Crime of Stacking the Deck. It seems ambiguous whether the probability of drawing a Justice card is proportional to the number of Justice Cards, or the probability of drawing *each* justice card is. (I'm pretty sure the former is what's intended.) I think changing "make the choice of which card" to "make the choice of which type of card" would fix the ambiguity. (Example: if the Deck owns a. Justice, b. Justice, c. Victory, then we don't want to say the distribution is 2/5, 2/5, 1/5.) The Dealor's includes the card ownership of the Deck. a word (Also, the Treasuror already would need to report this. Does it help to have two officers reporting it?) - Falsifian What I wondered about regarding the Treasuror reporting is whether we should just split all of the cards into the Dealor's report. I definitely don't want two officers to have to track the same thing. It might work best to just have the Dealor track all cards like P.S.S. is saying here. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On 6/18/20 11:22 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 20:37, ATMunn via agora-discussion > wrote: >> Here's a proto-proposal I came up with somewhat on the spot. Opinions >> welcome. >> >> >> Title: The Deck >> AI: 1.0 >> Author: ATMunn >> Co-author(s): >> >> Enact a power-1 rule entitled "The Deck" with the following text: >> The Deck is an entity. The Deck CAN own Cards, but no other types of >> assets. >> >> If the Deck owns at least one Card, any player CAN pay 10 coins to >> Draw a Card. When a player does so, the Dealor CAN by announcement, >> and SHALL in a timely fashion, transfer a Card from the Deck to the >> player who Drew a Card. The Dealor SHALL make the choice of which >> card to transfer randomly, with the probability of each type of Card >> being exactly proportional to the number of that Card that the Deck >> owns. Failure to use random chance in this transfer is the Class-2 >> Crime of Stacking the Deck. > > It seems ambiguous whether the probability of drawing a Justice card > is proportional to the number of Justice Cards, or the probability of > drawing *each* justice card is. (I'm pretty sure the former is what's > intended.) > > I think changing "make the choice of which card" to "make the choice > of which type of card" would fix the ambiguity. > > (Example: if the Deck owns a. Justice, b. Justice, c. Victory, then we > don't want to say the distribution is 2/5, 2/5, 1/5.) > >> The Dealor's includes the card ownership of the Deck. > > a word > > (Also, the Treasuror already would need to report this. Does it help > to have two officers reporting it?) > > - Falsifian > What I wondered about regarding the Treasuror reporting is whether we should just split all of the cards into the Dealor's report. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 20:37, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > Here's a proto-proposal I came up with somewhat on the spot. Opinions > welcome. > > > Title: The Deck > AI: 1.0 > Author: ATMunn > Co-author(s): > > Enact a power-1 rule entitled "The Deck" with the following text: > The Deck is an entity. The Deck CAN own Cards, but no other types of > assets. > > If the Deck owns at least one Card, any player CAN pay 10 coins to > Draw a Card. When a player does so, the Dealor CAN by announcement, > and SHALL in a timely fashion, transfer a Card from the Deck to the > player who Drew a Card. The Dealor SHALL make the choice of which > card to transfer randomly, with the probability of each type of Card > being exactly proportional to the number of that Card that the Deck > owns. Failure to use random chance in this transfer is the Class-2 > Crime of Stacking the Deck. It seems ambiguous whether the probability of drawing a Justice card is proportional to the number of Justice Cards, or the probability of drawing *each* justice card is. (I'm pretty sure the former is what's intended.) I think changing "make the choice of which card" to "make the choice of which type of card" would fix the ambiguity. (Example: if the Deck owns a. Justice, b. Justice, c. Victory, then we don't want to say the distribution is 2/5, 2/5, 1/5.) > The Dealor's includes the card ownership of the Deck. a word (Also, the Treasuror already would need to report this. Does it help to have two officers reporting it?) - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
G. wrote: As a side-note, could we add back to Sets a single-word term that means trading cards for currencies? The first draft used "transmute" but that's being used in a proposal now. It would be much easier to say "when a card is transmuted..." so it's only triggered when that particular kind of exchange happens (I had this problem with barrels, too). "Meld"? Also, suggestion: increase the cost based on how many cards you've already drawn that week (using whatever specific formula you like).
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On 6/18/2020 7:05 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: Oh - forgot a couple comments! On 6/18/2020 1:37 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Discarding" with the following text: When a player pays a set of at least 2 cards, You need to add something here - "pay" on its own could count paying someone else, a contract could be set up that you could keep "paying" to create cards in the deck and get a fee. As a side-note, could we add back to Sets a single-word term that means trading cards for currencies? The first draft used "transmute" but that's being used in a proposal now. It would be much easier to say "when a card is transmuted..." so it's only triggered when that particular kind of exchange happens (I had this problem with barrels, too). Transform maybe? Convert? Neither term is currently used in the ruleset. On 6/18/2020 1:37 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: -I was going to originally have the Discard Pile be another separate entity where Discarded Cards and Cards paid in sets went, and then were "shuffled" into the Deck at the start of this month. I decided against it for sake of simplicity, but would that be a good idea? Having a discard pile reduced the amount of error I mentioned in the last email. Without a discard pile, if there's a CFJ on whether a card payment happened, then it effectively freezes dealing from the deck until it's resolved. With a discard pile, you could just "leave the uncertainty in the discard pile" for a while and keep dealing. Alright. I will add the discard pile into the next draft. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On 6/18/2020 6:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/18/2020 1:37 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: exactly proportional to the number of that Card When we had a card game with a deck once, we had a lot of minor errors happen where a card was thought to be in the deck that wasn't, or vice versa. This led to a lot of breakages of rules like this when the card dealt with probability 1/51 instead of 1/52 or something. We ended up saying "reasonably close to the correct probabilites" which we defined as something like "provided the error is only a few cards out of a larger deck and doesn't actually create a nonexistent card, the deal's fine." Probably a good idea. -Is 10 coins a good fee for Drawing? I don't think we can answer this right now, and in response to another proposal I think both nch and I said "let's let the value find itself before fixing it with card buys" (hope that's not twisting your words nch). So I'd hesitate to vote for something like this until we played for a month or so to answer this question. I seem to be very good at coming up with ideas too early. -On that note, is there some way to do this so that we *don't* have to make a random choice each time someone draws a card? Random choices can be a bit cumbersome with the mailing list. One way is to trust the officer to use a method that doesn't go through the whole "confirmation via third party email" thing (i.e. let em pick numbers offline and just trust that the picks were honest). When we've had games that have required a lot of random numbers we've trusted each other enough to even say "I just rolled a physical percentile dice and the result was 15" or something. Yeah, that might be the way to go. Maybe the Dealor could even improvise an actual deck of cards (since there are 4 types of cards, this could be done easily with the four suits of standard playing cards) and actually draw cards from it. I don't think I would want to actually write that into the rules, but I would certainly be up for doing that if I were Dealor. (Aside: I spent a stint as Dealor for the aforementioned card game. For fun I used a script that pulled numbers from a genuine radioactive random source: https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/. So that particular game was genuinely random though people had to trust me about that, and depending on your beliefs about quantum mechanics we may have branched into a few different dimensions in the multiverse back then). -G. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
Oh - forgot a couple comments! On 6/18/2020 1:37 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Discarding" with the following text: > When a player pays a set of at least 2 cards, You need to add something here - "pay" on its own could count paying someone else, a contract could be set up that you could keep "paying" to create cards in the deck and get a fee. As a side-note, could we add back to Sets a single-word term that means trading cards for currencies? The first draft used "transmute" but that's being used in a proposal now. It would be much easier to say "when a card is transmuted..." so it's only triggered when that particular kind of exchange happens (I had this problem with barrels, too). On 6/18/2020 1:37 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > -I was going to originally have the Discard Pile be another separate > entity where Discarded Cards and Cards paid in sets went, and then were > "shuffled" into the Deck at the start of this month. I decided against > it for sake of simplicity, but would that be a good idea? Having a discard pile reduced the amount of error I mentioned in the last email. Without a discard pile, if there's a CFJ on whether a card payment happened, then it effectively freezes dealing from the deck until it's resolved. With a discard pile, you could just "leave the uncertainty in the discard pile" for a while and keep dealing. -G.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
On 6/18/2020 1:37 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > exactly proportional to the number of that Card When we had a card game with a deck once, we had a lot of minor errors happen where a card was thought to be in the deck that wasn't, or vice versa. This led to a lot of breakages of rules like this when the card dealt with probability 1/51 instead of 1/52 or something. We ended up saying "reasonably close to the correct probabilites" which we defined as something like "provided the error is only a few cards out of a larger deck and doesn't actually create a nonexistent card, the deal's fine." > -Is 10 coins a good fee for Drawing? I don't think we can answer this right now, and in response to another proposal I think both nch and I said "let's let the value find itself before fixing it with card buys" (hope that's not twisting your words nch). So I'd hesitate to vote for something like this until we played for a month or so to answer this question. > -On that note, is there some way to do this so that we *don't* have to > make a random choice each time someone draws a card? Random choices can > be a bit cumbersome with the mailing list. One way is to trust the officer to use a method that doesn't go through the whole "confirmation via third party email" thing (i.e. let em pick numbers offline and just trust that the picks were honest). When we've had games that have required a lot of random numbers we've trusted each other enough to even say "I just rolled a physical percentile dice and the result was 15" or something. (Aside: I spent a stint as Dealor for the aforementioned card game. For fun I used a script that pulled numbers from a genuine radioactive random source: https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/. So that particular game was genuinely random though people had to trust me about that, and depending on your beliefs about quantum mechanics we may have branched into a few different dimensions in the multiverse back then). -G.
DIS: [Proto-proposal] What's a card game without a deck?
Here's a proto-proposal I came up with somewhat on the spot. Opinions welcome. Title: The Deck AI: 1.0 Author: ATMunn Co-author(s): Enact a power-1 rule entitled "The Deck" with the following text: The Deck is an entity. The Deck CAN own Cards, but no other types of assets. If the Deck owns at least one Card, any player CAN pay 10 coins to Draw a Card. When a player does so, the Dealor CAN by announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, transfer a Card from the Deck to the player who Drew a Card. The Dealor SHALL make the choice of which card to transfer randomly, with the probability of each type of Card being exactly proportional to the number of that Card that the Deck owns. Failure to use random chance in this transfer is the Class-2 Crime of Stacking the Deck. Enact a power-1 rule entitled "The Dealor" with the following text: The Dealor is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of the Deck and the transfer of Cards to and from the Deck. The Dealor's includes the card ownership of the Deck. Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Discarding" with the following text: When a player pays a set of at least 2 cards, one card of that type is created in the posession of the Deck. Any player CAN Discard a Card by announcement at any time, transferring that Card to the Deck. Create 2 cards of each type in the posession of the Deck. [Notes: -Is 10 coins a good fee for Drawing? -I was going to originally have the Discard Pile be another separate entity where Discarded Cards and Cards paid in sets went, and then were "shuffled" into the Deck at the start of this month. I decided against it for sake of simplicity, but would that be a good idea? -I like the idea of having a Dealor, but eir duties could just as well be performed by the Treasuror. I just don't know how much work it would be to make a random choice every time someone Draws a Card. -On that note, is there some way to do this so that we *don't* have to make a random choice each time someone draws a card? Random choices can be a bit cumbersome with the mailing list.] -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
