The point of CFJ 1895 is that it's an Agoran axiom (or custom) that,
for legal purposes, natural persons are the only accepted originators
of thought. This is in part driven by the idea that the definition of a
"Game" is that a collection of thought-originators are making moves
as a collaborativ
I support.
(So a win is worth abooout 90 Shinies tops? Considering that the Black one
is one of the hardest ones and the rest would be worth that much or less.
Not that its really too important lol, just curious to see.).
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Fe
also this is all in a-d and bogus lol
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:53 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I support.
>
> (So a win is worth abooout 90 Shinies tops? Considering that the Black one
> is one of the hardest ones and the rest would be worth that much or less.
> Not that its really too important lo
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I support.
NTTPF.
> (So a win is worth abooout 90 Shinies tops? Considering that the Black one
> is one of the hardest ones and the rest would be worth that much or less.
> Not that its really too important lol, just curious to see.).
I really don't t
That's so curious. Imagine if each of us were robots which are trying to
maximize the amount of wins we have in comparison to the total amount (to
get a somehow "objective" measure the value of a win - if there's loads of
it, each that someone has is "worth" less).
And then for simplicity, all we
ignore the "Lets consider that we DO have the bracket content in there"
thing, that was in my CTRL+V from elsewhere and I slipped lol
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> That's so curious. Imagine if each of us were robots which are trying to
> maximize the amount of wins we h
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 12:04 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> In some ways a win is worth far more (bragging value and permanent
> record) and
> in some ways less (if I bribed each person a number of shinies to
> vote for me
> to win in a proposal, I bet "buying" a win would be - oh I dunno in
> the 50-s
OK, I'm up for trying it. How much would you sell your vote for?
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Alex Smith
wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 12:04 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > In some ways a win is worth far more (bragging value and permanent
> > record) and
> > in some ways less (if I bribed e
Recently, there was a proto submitted based on the PAoaM system where you
have to destroy a number of the assets to achieving a win. That's
technically buying a win in the loosest way possible since all the assets
are defined as currencies.
On Feb 13, 2018 14:12, "Alex Smith" wrote:
On Tue, 2018
🙄
On 2018-02-14 08:17, Cuddle Beam wrote:
OK, I'm up for trying it. How much would you sell your vote for?
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Alex Smith
wrote:
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 12:04 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
In some ways a win is worth far more (bragging value and permanent
record) and
Eh, sort of, yeah.
I just find that it's done via proposal to have a certain mystique to it.
Proposals are the most powerful thing in the game, and you're using game
money, which is comparably worth soo mch leeess than the
omnipotence of a proposal, to get a fraction of that omnipotence a
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 22:17 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> OK, I'm up for trying it. How much would you sell your vote for?
I don't have a vote right now, and part of the problem is that Agora
doesn't have much assets of lasting value at the moment to trade for
it.
Perhaps a vote trade would be the
So, vote trade shoppe? Vote trade shoppe.
I guess it could be done via contract. Man I love the custom-writing stuff,
it's so cool and versatile.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:22 PM, Alex Smith
wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 22:17 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > OK, I'm up for trying it. How much wo
Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
When one or more players win the game:
* Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are cancelled.
* Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win are
destroyed.
* The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion r
One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each
official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once
someone's done it first the method's gone.
Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term they
are and that you "can't" get them as your fir
On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 13:33 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
>
> When one or more players win the game:
> * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are
> cancelled.
> * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not
> win are dest
Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic wins
have resulted in complete economy resets.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline wrote:
> One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each
> official method of winning can only be done by one pers
I'd rather not have wins destroy other fractions-of-wins because it
snowballs. If you win, you're in a better position to win again because
your fractions-of-wins aren't harmed.
An easier solution imo is that only one person can win per month, max. It
becomes a bit of a "dynastic" game though lol.
Also, I don't think this changes much about the "win economy", where "too
many wins" makes them worth "too little" (which I think this is trying to
stop, a sort of win inflation?)
Because I think that the proportion of wins of a person in comparison to
the total will still be more or less the sam
Maybe fractions-of-wins is the wrong answer, but I feel like a win, by its very
nature, should be bad for everyone else, so that we have an incentive to stop
them. That’s just me, however. Given that we rarely have more that one win per
month anyway, CB’s solution doesn’t do much. Not sure what
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 22:17 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > OK, I'm up for trying it. How much would you sell your vote for?
>
> I don't have a vote right now, and part of the problem is that Agora
> doesn't have much assets of lasting value at the moment t
Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning going on, but
I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some statement
from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's not a good
punishment).
The current consensus-driven penalty system is very poor a
I think we should have resetting wins, but not for every win type (e.g. not for
Ribbons
in particular).
I think whenever we've had parallel win methods, we've mixed re-setting and
non-resetting
wins, but never done resets across sub-win types.
I also think we should put in Losing Conditions t
I guess what I’m trying to fix is my feeling that wins don’t matter much. In a
“traditional” game, a win is a big deal: if you win, I don’t. In Agora,
however, my reaction is pretty much “oh, G won. Cool.” That’s the opposite of
what a win should be like, in my opinion. My goal isn’t so much to
I'm not supporting on purpose :)
On 2018-02-14 09:18, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning going on, but
I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some statement
from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's not a good
I support.
> On Feb 13, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
>
> Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning going on, but
> I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some statement
> from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's not a
Pretty sure you didn't have enough support for that.
On 2018-02-14 09:25, Alexis Hunt wrote:
I support and do so.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 17:24, Madeline wrote:
I'm not supporting on purpose :)
On 2018-02-14 09:18, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winn
This particular tempo for the game and its wins is what makes Agora very
appealing to me. We already have Blognomic for constant competitive play,
and we could just propose here "Competition Month" or something. I wouldn't
feel like changing something this "fundamental" to that tempo would be good
*twists mustachio* curses, foiled again!
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Telnaior wrote:
> I object. :V
>
>
> On 2018-02-14 09:26, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
>> > there's general apathy/ambivalence
>>
>> *smacks lips open* Aaaay I know what this calls for.
>>
>> I intend to declare victory by apat
As mentioned before, it doesn't have to be all one thing. There can be
a couple resetting win methods, and some that don't reset. It's fun when
we don't worry about it, but say 1-2 weeks in a quarter events conspire
to have a "race to a prize" that several people compete in. (Things like
Zombi
You are a bad person.
On 2018-02-14 10:12, Cuddle Beam wrote:
I bid 15 shinies on that auction
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Telnaior wrote:
:(
I bid 14 shinies on nichdel's zombie auction.
On 2018-02-14 09:43, Kerim Aydin wrote:
With sufficient support, I do so.
To save Telnaior th
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 21:54, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I object to that intent :P
>
I pend the proposal "Paradoxical Contract Obligation Fix" with shinies.
> Another try:
>
> I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract) by paying 1 shiny to
> Agora, with the following text:
>
> ---
> C
Crap. I CAN FEEL SO CLOSE.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Reuben Staley
wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2018 19:54, "Cuddle Beam" wrote:
>
> I object to that intent :P
>
> Another try:
>
> I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract) by paying 1 shiny to
> Agora, with the following text:
>
> ---
On Feb 13, 2018 19:54, "Cuddle Beam" wrote:
I object to that intent :P
Another try:
I create a contract (Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract) by paying 1 shiny to
Agora, with the following text:
---
Cuddlebeam's Cool Contract.
"This sentence is false."
The way this contract is destroyed is
I think that's a lot better for what its trying to do actually.
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Proposal: Supportive Proposals (AI=1)
> {{{
> Amend Rule 2445 by replacing "Without Objection" with "With 3 Support".
> }}}
>
> This is intended in part to make the cycle faster,
Do you even have enough shinies for all these contracts?
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 22:21, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Anyways, I deleted the post, but here is an archive of it:
> http://archive.is/FQpip
>
> I need to go sleep, godspeed to me lol.
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
Last time we did this, 3 players created a contract so that anyone
could act on their behalf to get the support automatically. This
needs objections or the proposal Economy is completely devalued.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I think that's a lot better for what its trying to do a
Someone should track that...
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Do you even have enough shinies for all these contracts?
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 22:21, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> > Anyways, I deleted the post, but here is an archive of it:
> > http://archive.is/FQpip
> >
> > I need t
Sounds fine to me.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 22:48, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Last time we did this, 3 players created a contract so that anyone
> could act on their behalf to get the support automatically. This
> needs objections or the proposal Economy is completely devalued.
>
> On Wed, 14 Feb
Is there an intended purpose for gray ribbons? I'm not sure if there's
some custom I should be made aware of there.
On 2018-02-14 14:54, Telnaior wrote:
I award a Gray Ribbon to Trigon.
On 2018-02-14 12:55, Reuben Staley wrote:
I transfer 5 shinies to Telnaior.
On Feb 13, 2018 17:14, "Madeli
On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 15:29 +1100, Madeline wrote:
> Is there an intended purpose for gray ribbons? I'm not sure if
> there's some custom I should be made aware of there.
The intended purpose is to give the Tailor something tradeable at times
when the economy isn't working, to persuade people to t
41 matches
Mail list logo