Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/11/2020 1:01 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:58 PM James Cook via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >>> In general, defining one method for doing something excludes >> "unregulated" >>> methods from working, but doesn't exclude other regulated methods in the >>> rules from working. >>> >>> For example, saying (under certain conditions) that the Herald CAN award >>> Champion by announcement (Rule 2449) doesn't prevent the Herald from >>> awarding Champion using the generic w/2 Agoran Consent method for patent >>> titles (R649). >>> >>> The wording I used was "A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em >> 100 >>> barrels." which could be read as "any time a player CAN win the game >>> (under any win method) it will additionally cost em 100 barrels." Saying >>> "A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 100 barrels" doesn't stop >>> other regulated methods in the rules from working independently (but it >>> does put "win the game" into the "regulated" category which blocks wholly >>> unregulated methods from succeeding). >> >> I don't understand how the first phrasing could give R2579 any more >> force compared to the second phrasing. In both cases, the sole reason >> R2579 comes into effect is because payment of a set of assets has been >> associated with the action of winning the game. >> >> R2579 clearly says what *must* be done to perform a fee-based action. >> It is not written as if it's designed to provide an additional method. >> "To perform a fee-based action, an entity ... must ... indicate intent >> to pay that fee" and later "Otherwise ... the action is not >> performed". If another rule claims that it's possible to perform such >> an action a different way, then the rules are in conflict. >> >> Responding to Jason re R2125: yes, R2125 implies the possibility of >> multiple methods, but ultimately, it defers to the body of law (i.e. >> other rules): "that body of law prevents the action from being >> performed except as described within it". The "including by limiting >> the methods" part is in addition to that. > > > This all presumes that the fee-based action is winning the game, rather > than winning the game by barrels. > -Aris Oh, also, "Winning the game" isn't actually defined as an action in Rule 2449, and actually the explicit definition sounds like it's *not* an action: "When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game, those persons win the game" (This is a high-level definition so maybe overrides implications that winning the game is an action). So it's something that just "happens" when conditions are fulfilled?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 12:58 PM James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > In general, defining one method for doing something excludes > "unregulated" > > methods from working, but doesn't exclude other regulated methods in the > > rules from working. > > > > For example, saying (under certain conditions) that the Herald CAN award > > Champion by announcement (Rule 2449) doesn't prevent the Herald from > > awarding Champion using the generic w/2 Agoran Consent method for patent > > titles (R649). > > > > The wording I used was "A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em > 100 > > barrels." which could be read as "any time a player CAN win the game > > (under any win method) it will additionally cost em 100 barrels." Saying > > "A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 100 barrels" doesn't stop > > other regulated methods in the rules from working independently (but it > > does put "win the game" into the "regulated" category which blocks wholly > > unregulated methods from succeeding). > > I don't understand how the first phrasing could give R2579 any more > force compared to the second phrasing. In both cases, the sole reason > R2579 comes into effect is because payment of a set of assets has been > associated with the action of winning the game. > > R2579 clearly says what *must* be done to perform a fee-based action. > It is not written as if it's designed to provide an additional method. > "To perform a fee-based action, an entity ... must ... indicate intent > to pay that fee" and later "Otherwise ... the action is not > performed". If another rule claims that it's possible to perform such > an action a different way, then the rules are in conflict. > > Responding to Jason re R2125: yes, R2125 implies the possibility of > multiple methods, but ultimately, it defers to the body of law (i.e. > other rules): "that body of law prevents the action from being > performed except as described within it". The "including by limiting > the methods" part is in addition to that. This all presumes that the fee-based action is winning the game, rather than winning the game by barrels. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
> In general, defining one method for doing something excludes "unregulated" > methods from working, but doesn't exclude other regulated methods in the > rules from working. > > For example, saying (under certain conditions) that the Herald CAN award > Champion by announcement (Rule 2449) doesn't prevent the Herald from > awarding Champion using the generic w/2 Agoran Consent method for patent > titles (R649). > > The wording I used was "A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 > barrels." which could be read as "any time a player CAN win the game > (under any win method) it will additionally cost em 100 barrels." Saying > "A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 100 barrels" doesn't stop > other regulated methods in the rules from working independently (but it > does put "win the game" into the "regulated" category which blocks wholly > unregulated methods from succeeding). I don't understand how the first phrasing could give R2579 any more force compared to the second phrasing. In both cases, the sole reason R2579 comes into effect is because payment of a set of assets has been associated with the action of winning the game. R2579 clearly says what *must* be done to perform a fee-based action. It is not written as if it's designed to provide an additional method. "To perform a fee-based action, an entity ... must ... indicate intent to pay that fee" and later "Otherwise ... the action is not performed". If another rule claims that it's possible to perform such an action a different way, then the rules are in conflict. Responding to Jason re R2125: yes, R2125 implies the possibility of multiple methods, but ultimately, it defers to the body of law (i.e. other rules): "that body of law prevents the action from being performed except as described within it". The "including by limiting the methods" part is in addition to that. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/11/2020 12:17 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >>> In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the >>> game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action. >>> E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would >>> *still* require you to pay 100 barrels to win, because that's the fee. I >>> think the fact that R478, which defines "by announcement", takes >>> precedence over R2579 prevents that problem, but I'm not sure. >> >> Ah, that *is* a problem with that wording I used - best argument I've seen >> against using it. (I think it's the wording, not the association in >> general - we've got the association of winning with a fee in R2483: "A >> player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins.") > > Why does the wording make a difference? > > I thought my comment applied to the 1,000 Coin rule as well, but > didn't bring it up because that's about to be repealed. In general, defining one method for doing something excludes "unregulated" methods from working, but doesn't exclude other regulated methods in the rules from working. For example, saying (under certain conditions) that the Herald CAN award Champion by announcement (Rule 2449) doesn't prevent the Herald from awarding Champion using the generic w/2 Agoran Consent method for patent titles (R649). The wording I used was "A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels." which could be read as "any time a player CAN win the game (under any win method) it will additionally cost em 100 barrels." Saying "A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 100 barrels" doesn't stop other regulated methods in the rules from working independently (but it does put "win the game" into the "regulated" category which blocks wholly unregulated methods from succeeding). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/11/20 3:17 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > Why does the wording make a difference? > > I thought my comment applied to the 1,000 Coin rule as well, but > didn't bring it up because that's about to be repealed. > > - Falsifian R2125 permits multiple methods and strongly implies that any of them can be used to perform the action: > If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that > doing so is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action > from being performed except as described within it, including by > limiting the methods to perform that action to those specified > within it. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 17:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/11/2020 10:12 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > >> wrote: > >>> On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would > permit a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. > >>> > >>> Using what method? > >> > >> The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a > >> mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the > >> game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to > >> have a dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule > >> states that players in general CAN win the game, not just players who > >> have 100 barrels.) > >> > >> I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently > >> precise to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players > >> who are short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short > >> of an ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise > >> to trigger rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" > >> means "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most > >> rules that want players to be able to perform an action under certain > >> circumstances state that attempts succeed under only those > >> circumstances, whereas this rule is apparently defined so that > >> attempting to perform the action is automatically successful, but limits > >> the performance of the action by restricting what would count as an > >> attempt. That's an almost unprecedented situation (and very unintuitive > >> because it relies on the rule being reinterpreted into something other > >> than the obvious reading by a higher-powered rule). > >> > >> For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game > >> without 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it > >> works (or maybe even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but > >> this costs me 100 barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and > >> thus by the new rule, and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The > >> announcement didn't actually trigger anything within the rules directly; > >> but it was evidence of an attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it > >> succeeded! > >> > >> -- > >> ais523 > > > > Doesn't R2125 (Regulated Actions) stop that ISIDTID from working? > > Assuming G.'s proposal is precise enough to trigger R2579 (Fee-based > > Actions) (it looks that way to me), then I think the rules (specifically > > the conditions in R2579) make winning the game a regulated action. So, > > R2125 says the rules prevent the action from occurring except as laid > > out by the rules. > > > > In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the > > game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action. > > E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would > > *still* require you to pay 100 barrels to win, because that's the fee. I > > think the fact that R478, which defines "by announcement", takes > > precedence over R2579 prevents that problem, but I'm not sure. > > Ah, that *is* a problem with that wording I used - best argument I've seen > against using it. (I think it's the wording, not the association in > general - we've got the association of winning with a fee in R2483: "A > player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins.") Why does the wording make a difference? I thought my comment applied to the 1,000 Coin rule as well, but didn't bring it up because that's about to be repealed. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/11/2020 10:12 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would permit a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. >>> >>> Using what method? >> >> The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a >> mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the >> game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to >> have a dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule >> states that players in general CAN win the game, not just players who >> have 100 barrels.) >> >> I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently >> precise to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players >> who are short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short >> of an ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise >> to trigger rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" >> means "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most >> rules that want players to be able to perform an action under certain >> circumstances state that attempts succeed under only those >> circumstances, whereas this rule is apparently defined so that >> attempting to perform the action is automatically successful, but limits >> the performance of the action by restricting what would count as an >> attempt. That's an almost unprecedented situation (and very unintuitive >> because it relies on the rule being reinterpreted into something other >> than the obvious reading by a higher-powered rule). >> >> For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game >> without 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it >> works (or maybe even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but >> this costs me 100 barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and >> thus by the new rule, and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The >> announcement didn't actually trigger anything within the rules directly; >> but it was evidence of an attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it >> succeeded! >> >> -- >> ais523 > > Doesn't R2125 (Regulated Actions) stop that ISIDTID from working? > Assuming G.'s proposal is precise enough to trigger R2579 (Fee-based > Actions) (it looks that way to me), then I think the rules (specifically > the conditions in R2579) make winning the game a regulated action. So, > R2125 says the rules prevent the action from occurring except as laid > out by the rules. > > In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the > game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action. > E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would > *still* require you to pay 100 barrels to win, because that's the fee. I > think the fact that R478, which defines "by announcement", takes > precedence over R2579 prevents that problem, but I'm not sure. Ah, that *is* a problem with that wording I used - best argument I've seen against using it. (I think it's the wording, not the association in general - we've got the association of winning with a fee in R2483: "A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins.")
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
> On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > > > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would permit > > > a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. > > > > Using what method? > > The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a > mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the > game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to > have a dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule > states that players in general CAN win the game, not just players who > have 100 barrels.) > > I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently > precise to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players > who are short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short > of an ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise > to trigger rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" > means "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most > rules that want players to be able to perform an action under certain > circumstances state that attempts succeed under only those > circumstances, whereas this rule is apparently defined so that > attempting to perform the action is automatically successful, but limits > the performance of the action by restricting what would count as an > attempt. That's an almost unprecedented situation (and very unintuitive > because it relies on the rule being reinterpreted into something other > than the obvious reading by a higher-powered rule). > > For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game > without 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it > works (or maybe even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but > this costs me 100 barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and > thus by the new rule, and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The > announcement didn't actually trigger anything within the rules directly; > but it was evidence of an attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it > succeeded! > > -- > ais523 Doesn't R2125 (Regulated Actions) stop that ISIDTID from working? Assuming G.'s proposal is precise enough to trigger R2579 (Fee-based Actions) (it looks that way to me), then I think the rules (specifically the conditions in R2579) make winning the game a regulated action. So, R2125 says the rules prevent the action from occurring except as laid out by the rules. In fact, I'm a little worried that associating a fee with winning the game might mean you always need to pay that fee to perform that action. E.g. even if you had 20 more victory cards than anyone else, R2579 would *still* require you to pay 100 barrels to win, because that's the fee. I think the fact that R478, which defines "by announcement", takes precedence over R2579 prevents that problem, but I'm not sure. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:29 PM grok via agora-business wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, 3:06 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > what is ISTIDDIES? > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:59 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via > > agora-discussion > > > wrote: > > > > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > > > >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > > > > > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would > > > permit a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. > > > > > > > > Using what method? > > > > > > The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a > > > mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the > > > game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to > > have a > > > dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule states > > that > > > players in general CAN win the game, not just players who have 100 > > barrels.) > > > > > > I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently precise > > > to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players who are > > > short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short of an > > > ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise to > > trigger > > > rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" means > > > "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most rules > > that > > > want players to be able to perform an action under certain circumstances > > > state that attempts succeed under only those circumstances, whereas this > > > rule is apparently defined so that attempting to perform the action is > > > automatically successful, but limits the performance of the action by > > > restricting what would count as an attempt. That's an almost > > unprecedented > > > situation (and very unintuitive because it relies on the rule being > > > reinterpreted into something other than the obvious reading by a > > > higher-powered rule). > > > > > > For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game without > > > 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it works (or > > maybe > > > even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but this costs me > > 100 > > > barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and thus by the new > > rule, > > > and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The announcement didn't actually > > > trigger anything within the rules directly; but it was evidence of an > > > attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it succeeded! > > > > > > -- > > > ais523 > > > > > I submit the following notice of honour: > > +1 ais523 for thoughtful addition to the discussion > -1 cuddlebeam for eir "joke" > > > This fails because ais523 isn't a player.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
what is ISTIDDIES? On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:59 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > > > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would > permit a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. > > > > Using what method? > > The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a > mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the > game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to have a > dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule states that > players in general CAN win the game, not just players who have 100 barrels.) > > I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently precise > to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players who are > short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short of an > ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise to trigger > rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" means > "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most rules that > want players to be able to perform an action under certain circumstances > state that attempts succeed under only those circumstances, whereas this > rule is apparently defined so that attempting to perform the action is > automatically successful, but limits the performance of the action by > restricting what would count as an attempt. That's an almost unprecedented > situation (and very unintuitive because it relies on the rule being > reinterpreted into something other than the obvious reading by a > higher-powered rule). > > For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game without > 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it works (or maybe > even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but this costs me 100 > barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and thus by the new rule, > and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The announcement didn't actually > trigger anything within the rules directly; but it was evidence of an > attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it succeeded! > > -- > ais523 >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/9/20 3:00 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/9/20 2:14 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Is there any reason this isn't just "A player CAN spend 100 barrels to win >>> the game"? >> tbh, because I was a little bored with that stock phrasing, and the >> reaction to it from commenters so far shows that IMO we've got a bit of a >> dependence issue with stock phrases and invokations such that we question >> every variant (even when the governing rule is fairly explicit at allowing >> for variance). That seems constraining and worth shaking up just a >> little, from time to time. > > I don't think the issue is the stock phrase or synonyms, it's the > passive construction. The wording sounds like, to me, that I can do it > by announcement and it will be effective, and then right afterwards I > will lose 100 barrels. But if I don't have 100 barrels, it sounds like > its still effective. The CAN isn't conditional on paying or being able > to pay in the way that this is worded. > > If it were to say "If e has at least 100 barrels, a player CAN win by announcement, but it will cost em 100 barrels." I think that would work as you intend it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/9/20 2:14 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> Is there any reason this isn't just "A player CAN spend 100 barrels to win >> the game"? > tbh, because I was a little bored with that stock phrasing, and the > reaction to it from commenters so far shows that IMO we've got a bit of a > dependence issue with stock phrases and invokations such that we question > every variant (even when the governing rule is fairly explicit at allowing > for variance). That seems constraining and worth shaking up just a > little, from time to time. I don't think the issue is the stock phrase or synonyms, it's the passive construction. The wording sounds like, to me, that I can do it by announcement and it will be effective, and then right afterwards I will lose 100 barrels. But if I don't have 100 barrels, it sounds like its still effective. The CAN isn't conditional on paying or being able to pay in the way that this is worded.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would permit a > > player to win the game without having 100 barrels. > > Using what method? The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to have a dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule states that players in general CAN win the game, not just players who have 100 barrels.) I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently precise to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players who are short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short of an ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise to trigger rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" means "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most rules that want players to be able to perform an action under certain circumstances state that attempts succeed under only those circumstances, whereas this rule is apparently defined so that attempting to perform the action is automatically successful, but limits the performance of the action by restricting what would count as an attempt. That's an almost unprecedented situation (and very unintuitive because it relies on the rule being reinterpreted into something other than the obvious reading by a higher-powered rule). For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game without 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it works (or maybe even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but this costs me 100 barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and thus by the new rule, and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The announcement didn't actually trigger anything within the rules directly; but it was evidence of an attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it succeeded! -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would permit a > player to win the game without having 100 barrels. Using what method? > Is there any reason this isn't just "A player CAN spend 100 barrels to win > the game"? tbh, because I was a little bored with that stock phrasing, and the reaction to it from commenters so far shows that IMO we've got a bit of a dependence issue with stock phrases and invokations such that we question every variant (even when the governing rule is fairly explicit at allowing for variance). That seems constraining and worth shaking up just a little, from time to time. As a practical matter, no awards will be made for a bit, so if this is adopted I'll call a cfj and propose a fix for the wording if need be, to make the judge happy :P -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would permit a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. Is there any reason this isn't just "A player CAN spend 100 barrels to win the game"? I think your proposal is also likely too susceptible to Coopor + 3 confederate scams, which can place and cash out bargains in zero time. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 12:25 PM nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/9/20 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > > > > > Create a power-1 rule, "The General Store", with the following text: > > > >Barrels are a currency tracked by the Coopor (an office) in eir > >monthly report. A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 > >barrels. > > > Does this construction work like this? Shouldn't it be "A player CAN win > the game by paying 100 barrels"? > > > > > >A bargain is a specification consisting of a title, a payout (a > >number of barrels between 1 and 10), and a tender (a list of 6 or > >more rules-defined card types; a type may be repeated, with each > >repeat being a separate element on the list). > > > >A player CAN cash out a specified bargain that's "on the barrel", > >by announcement, provided that, in the same message, e paid cards > >(possibly spread over multiple sets) to successfully earn rules- > >defined products, and those cards match all of the cards types in > >that bargain's tender. The payment of a particular card instance > >can only match a single tender element for the single cashing out > >of a bargain. > > > >When a player cashes out a bargain on the barrel, e earns the > >payout for that bargain. > > > Do you want the bargains to be gone once someone cashes them out? The > term "cash out" makes me think they're meant to be one time usage, but > they don't seem to be the way the rule is written. > > > > > >The Coopor CANNOT cash out a specific bargain in the 14 days > >after putting that bargain on the barrel. > > > > > > Create a power-1 rule, "Bargains on the Barrel", with the > > following text: > > > >If there are fewer than four bargains on the barrel, the Coopor > >CAN put a bargain on the barrel with notice. If there are fewer > >than eight bargains on the barrel, the Coopor CAN put a bargain on > >the barrel with 3 support. > > > The ability of the Coopor to specify every element of the bargain seems > really abusable for a 2 person scam. Though the threshold of victory > through this is high enough that it'd probably get prevented well ahead > of time. Given that it's with notice, the Cooper could probably be removed prior to execution. > > > > > >The Coopor CAN take a bargain off the barrel without N objections, > >where N is the number of months, rounded up, since that bargain > >was last placed on the barrel. Within 14 days after winning an > >election for Coopor, the Coopor CAN take any bargain off the > >barrel with notice. > > > >The Coopor's monthly report includes a list of all bargains on the > >barrel. E SHOULD publish such a list whenever e adds or removes a > >bargain from the barrel. > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/9/2020 9:25 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/9/20 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> >> I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: >> >> >> Create a power-1 rule, "The General Store", with the following text: >> >>Barrels are a currency tracked by the Coopor (an office) in eir >>monthly report. A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 >>barrels. > > > Does this construction work like this? Shouldn't it be "A player CAN win > the game by paying 100 barrels"? It associates an action with a set of assets using the word "cost" - a direct and literal reading of R2579's first paragraph really (which was purposefully written to allow for synonymous phrasings). > Do you want the bargains to be gone once someone cashes them out? The > term "cash out" makes me think they're meant to be one time usage, but > they don't seem to be the way the rule is written. No they should stay. I wasn't 100% happy with the phrase "cash out". > The ability of the Coopor to specify every element of the bargain seems > really abusable for a 2 person scam. Though the threshold of victory > through this is high enough that it'd probably get prevented well ahead > of time. Hmm - see how this develops, maybe making it a week's notice to add? That way the abuse is telegraphed a week in advance, which would be enough time to impeach?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 16:25, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/9/20 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > > > > > Create a power-1 rule, "The General Store", with the following text: > > > >Barrels are a currency tracked by the Coopor (an office) in eir > >monthly report. A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 > >barrels. > > > Does this construction work like this? Shouldn't it be "A player CAN win > the game by paying 100 barrels"? I wondered about that too, but the wording in R2579 (specifically the first paragraph) is pretty liberal. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/9/20 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > > Create a power-1 rule, "The General Store", with the following text: > >Barrels are a currency tracked by the Coopor (an office) in eir >monthly report. A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 >barrels. Does this construction work like this? Shouldn't it be "A player CAN win the game by paying 100 barrels"? > >A bargain is a specification consisting of a title, a payout (a >number of barrels between 1 and 10), and a tender (a list of 6 or >more rules-defined card types; a type may be repeated, with each >repeat being a separate element on the list). > >A player CAN cash out a specified bargain that's "on the barrel", >by announcement, provided that, in the same message, e paid cards >(possibly spread over multiple sets) to successfully earn rules- >defined products, and those cards match all of the cards types in >that bargain's tender. The payment of a particular card instance >can only match a single tender element for the single cashing out >of a bargain. > >When a player cashes out a bargain on the barrel, e earns the >payout for that bargain. Do you want the bargains to be gone once someone cashes them out? The term "cash out" makes me think they're meant to be one time usage, but they don't seem to be the way the rule is written. > >The Coopor CANNOT cash out a specific bargain in the 14 days >after putting that bargain on the barrel. > > > Create a power-1 rule, "Bargains on the Barrel", with the > following text: > >If there are fewer than four bargains on the barrel, the Coopor >CAN put a bargain on the barrel with notice. If there are fewer >than eight bargains on the barrel, the Coopor CAN put a bargain on >the barrel with 3 support. The ability of the Coopor to specify every element of the bargain seems really abusable for a 2 person scam. Though the threshold of victory through this is high enough that it'd probably get prevented well ahead of time. > >The Coopor CAN take a bargain off the barrel without N objections, >where N is the number of months, rounded up, since that bargain >was last placed on the barrel. Within 14 days after winning an >election for Coopor, the Coopor CAN take any bargain off the >barrel with notice. > >The Coopor's monthly report includes a list of all bargains on the >barrel. E SHOULD publish such a list whenever e adds or removes a >bargain from the barrel. > > >
