Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread Reuben Staley
=== = = OFFICIAL IMPERIAL STATEMENT = = === I will not perform any actions that would unfairly benefit BlogNomic players coming from an Agoran invasion. However, if it is decided that one of us should take over BlogNomic and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 14:12 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > What if both nomics passed (matching) minigames themed around “combat > with the other nomic”? We could write in rules to give the winning > nomic dictatorship over the losing one, or just do it for bragging > rights. Both BlogNomic and

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread Gaelan Steele
What if both nomics passed (matching) minigames themed around “combat with the other nomic”? We could write in rules to give the winning nomic dictatorship over the losing one, or just do it for bragging rights. Whatever the theme, I am very much in favor of inter-nomic interaction. Gaelan >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 11:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > So we did this before. I think ais523 led it, but several of us registered > and tried to drive a win, with the intent that the next dynasty be an Agoran > one. (nothing more invasive, but we called it an invasion for fun). Assuming this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
So we did this before. I think ais523 led it, but several of us registered and tried to drive a win, with the intent that the next dynasty be an Agoran one. (nothing more invasive, but we called it an invasion for fun). It really pissed everyone off over there. They united against us and we

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread Cuddle Beam
OK I overlooked the “more seriously (...)” lmao. Sorry for getting so heated up. Yeah, having Ambassadors again would be cool. Aside from BN there are two active Discord nomics right now, Infinite Nomic (on the which I made a win happen after months of play on the same day I joined, I’m pretty

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread Cuddle Beam
Trigon might want to but any late thematic changes now to their dynasty would heavily rely on the current players to pass, and I suspect that a sudden Agora takeover would be met with more snickering than we can deal with and would fail. There’s a lot more social power and percieved legitimacy in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Trigon is the current Emperor of BlogNomic, so depending on how corruptible e is we may have an in... More seriously, the office of "Ambassador" (to other nomics) that apparently used to be a thing is mildly interesting: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg06285.html

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-16 Thread Cuddle Beam
It would’ve been pretty easy to win last dynasty with a coordinated team (wealth was pretty unambiguous from the start in the form of Clues: Emperor-given info on a series of data a la Cluedo; wealth could be easy shared because you just needed to know it. Unsurprisingly, a team of two players

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-16 Thread Gaelan Steele
Consider me interested. Gaelan > On Feb 16, 2019, at 10:33 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > We could just win it in the normal way next time and declare an Agora > theme... > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 01:32, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> My reading justifies the Agoran invasion better. >> >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-16 Thread Ørjan Johansen
My reading justifies the Agoran invasion better. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: I rather hoped the “mutatis mutandis” was implied. -Aris On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: BlogNomic almost

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-16 Thread Aris Merchant
I rather hoped the “mutatis mutandis” was implied. -Aris On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent > someone > > over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-16 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent someone over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would result in an Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but my version sounds better). Wait, BlogNomic

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-16 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 2/16/2019 9:52 AM, James Cook wrote: On the one hand, I am inclined to vote against it --- will it encourage people to be selective about which rules they follow? What's interesting to me about this is that it's a collective decision - as long as one person follows it, everyone is

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-16 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 17:04, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Ok, hopefully last time! > > I withdraw the proposal Ritual Sacrifice from the pool. > > I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1: > > > Create a Rule

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-16 Thread Kerim Aydin
This rather takes away from the elegance of a single rule. Here's a "simple" option: Repeal threshold: N Agoran Consent, where N is the maximum of 1 and 10/(A+1) rounded up to the nearest 0.1, and A is the number of weeks the rule has been continuously appeased. (Sequence: 10, 5, 3.4, 2.5,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Aris Merchant
BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent someone over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would result in an Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but my version sounds better). -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Madeline wrote: >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Cuddle Beam
Sounds cool but it’s not destructive enough. It should blow up ourselves too and all avocados IRL. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 23:52, Madeline wrote: > "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding, > Agora is destroyed." > (Would any other rule need to actually change for

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Madeline
Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals. On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote: No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of destroying Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it being broken to the game dying permanently. -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Aris Merchant
No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of destroying Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it being broken to the game dying permanently. -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline wrote: > "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Madeline
"If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding, Agora is destroyed." (Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to work if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?) On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote: Love it. You could have a separate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread D. Margaux
Love it. You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power of the Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual rule is repealed. And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too, if the Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Kerim Aydin
Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't increase power in the same way). On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux wrote: > > Any chance we can

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread D. Margaux
Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something more than notice? Or is that excessive? :-) > On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless. > > I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual. > > I submit the following

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread Cuddle Beam
PRAISE THE RITUAL On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 9:33 PM D. Margaux wrote: > I hope the Ritual becomes an actual ritual, and is never repealed. It > seems kind of awesome. > > > On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below. > > > >

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread D. Margaux
I hope the Ritual becomes an actual ritual, and is never repealed. It seems kind of awesome. > On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below. > > I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: >