On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 7:05 PM nch via agora-business
<agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:05:26 PM CDT nch via agora-business wrote:
> > Title: Sets v1.0
> > Author: nch
> > Co-Authors: Trigon, Falsifian, PSS, Jason Cobb
> > AI: 3
>
> I withdraw Sets v1.0 and submit the following proposal.
>
> {
>
> Title: Sets v1.1
> Author: nch
> Co-Authors: Trigon, Falsifian, PSS, Jason
> AI: 3
>
> Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "Cards & Sets" with the text:
>
> Cards are a type of asset with a corresponding Product. Products are
> also assets. The types of Cards and their corresponding Products are:
>
> * Victory Cards and Victory Points.
>
> * Justice Cards and Blot-B-Gones
>
> * Legislative Cards and Pendants
>
> * Voting Cards and Extra Votes
>
> A player CAN, by announcement, pay a 'set' of X Cards of the same type
> to create in eir possession Y corresponding Products. The value of X
> determines the value of Y in the following ways:
This is badly broken. The "by announcement" (arguably) makes it so you
can do it regardless if you have the cards. It needs to be a fee
(those have all sorts of protections, so it's best to use them
wherever possible).
The rephrased version would be something like "A player CAN, by paying
as a fee a 'set' of X Cards of the same type, earn Y corresponding
Products." I also added earn, because let's use those high level asset
verbs!
> * 1 Card = 1 Product
>
> * 2 Cards = 3 Products
>
> * 3 Cards = 6 Products
>
> * 4 Cards = 10 Products
>
> A player CANNOT pay more than 4 Cards as one 'set'.
>
> Cards and Products are tracked by the Treasuror.
>
> For each player that is not a zombie, create one of each type of card in eir
> possession.
>
> [The core of this proposal. Collect cards to make the other assets.
>
> I've been considering whether to have the Treasuror track everything or make a
> new role. I think there's pros and cons to both. I don't want to overtax the
> Treasuror but I also don't want to split rule-defined assets across multiple
> officers if it's not necessary.
>
> Also I'm not happy with Victory Points or Extra Votes. Name suggestions for
> those are welcome.]
>
> Amend rule 2499 "Welcome Packages" by replacing:
>
> When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns 10 coins.
>
> with:
>
> When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns 10 coins and one of
> each type of Card defined in the rules.
>
> [Simple Welcome package addition]
>
> Amend rule 2483 "Economics" by removing the following line:
>
> A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins.
>
> [Ultimately counter to an economy where we want constant trading and asset
> movement.]
>
> Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "VP Wins" with the following text:
>
> If a player has at least 20 more Victory Points than any other player, e
> can win by announcement. When a player wins this way, destroy all Cards
> and their corresponding products. Then, for each non-zombie player
> create
> 1 card of each type in eir possession.
Seems like there should be another comma in the last sentence? I'm not
a grammar expert, but it feels to me like there should be one after
"player".
> [Exactly what it says on the tin.]
>
> Amend rule 2555 "Blots" by replacing the following paragraph:
>
> If a person (the penitent) has neither gained blots nor had more
> than 2 blots expunged from emself in the current Agoran week, then
> any player (the confessor) who has not, by this mechanism,
> expunged any blots in the current Agoran week CAN expunge 1 blot
> from the penitent, by announcement.
>
> with:
>
> Any player CAN, by announcement, expunge a blot from a specified person
> (or emself if no one is specified) by paying a fee of one Blot-B-Gone.
Broken, because by announcement and by fee are two separate methods.
Incidentally, this is a good example of why the by announcement
defaulting is likely a bad idea. Anyhow, rephrasing "Any player CAN
expunge a blot from a specified person (or emself if no one is
specified) by paying a fee of one Blot-B-Gone."
>
> Amend rule 2350 "Proposals" by replacing:
>
> Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal
> is created, neither its text nor any of the aforementioned
> attributes can be changed. The author (syn. proposer) of a
> proposal is the person who submitted it.
>
> with:
>
> If a proposal was created in the last week and has not been added to the
> proposal pool, any player CAN add it to the Proposal Pool by paying one
> Pendant. When a player who is not the author or a co-author of a
> proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool by this method, e is added to the
> list of co-authors.
>
> Once a proposal is created, neither its text nor any of the
> aforementioned attributes can be changed, except by the mechanisms in
> this rule. The author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the person who
> submitted it.
>
> The Promotor CAN, once a week and without objection, add a propsoal to
> the Proposal Pool. E SHOULD NOT do so if the author of the proposal has
> at least one Pendant or Legislative Card.
This is typoed. Also, I think this standard is unnecessarily high.
Perhaps dangerously high, given a contrary I'd go with "once a week
by announcement". If you don't like that, make it with N support (not
objection or Agoran consent), so it can be done quickly. I'm unlikely
to break the economy with a single proposal a week.
> [Make Pendants do the pending thing. Making the pender a co-author ties into
> lime ribbons/glitter. Add a safeguard to let the promotor pend proposals when
> it's otherwise not possible.]
>
> Amend rule 2422 "Voting Strength" by adding:
>
> A player CAN, by announcement, pay 1 Extra Vote and specify a current
> Agoran decision on which e is a voter. Eir voting strength on that
> decision is 1 greater for each time e has done so. E CANNOT do so more
> than 3 times on the same decision.
This is broken because of the by announcement thing. Also, the
phrasing is awkward, and probably broken I'd guess? A person can pay
an Extra Vote whenever e likes. I'd go with something like "A player
CAN, by paying an Extra Vote, Double Down on a specified current
Agoran decision in which e is a voter. Eir voting strength on that
decision is 1 greater for each time e has done so. E CANNOT do so more
than 3 times on the same decision." You can change "Double Down" to
something else, but I think that would sound less awkward and
definitely not be broken.
> Amend rule 2476 Ownership by removing:
>
> Assets owned by the Lost and Found Department can be transferred or
> destroyed by any player without objection.
I'm not sure this is a great idea — I believe the original idea was
that in cases of injustice, the property can be restored to its proper
owner. That has never happened, to the best of my recollection, but
without objection is a high enough standard that it can be retained
while still allowing for the occasional case. I don't think it's
incompatible with your provision for the Treasuror later on.
> Create a new Power=1 rule titled "VP Auctions" with the following text:
>
> Once a week the Treasuror CAN and SHOULD initiate an auction. The
> auction
> has the following lots:
>
> * one Victory Card, created in the possession of Agora when the auction
> is initiated AND
>
> * all of any single type of asset currently own by the Lost and Found
> Department, if any.
>
> The Treasuror is the auctioneer for this auction, and may order the lots
> as e chooses. The minimum bid for this auction is 1 coin.
>
> [This is the primary way for Victory Cards to be created. Also adds a more
> interesting way to put lost assets back into circulation.]
>
> Create a new Power=1 rule titled "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege" with
> the
> following text:
>
> The player who proposed the proposal with the greatest F/A, as defined
> in
> rule 955, among all proposals assessed in the last 7 days CAN once earn
> one Legislative Card in eir possession. If there is a tie, all authors
> of the tied proposals may do so once each.
>
> [This introduces 4 (or more!) Legislative Cards per month. My math says that
> this, along with the 6 that can be created by officers should be enough. But
> time will tell for sure.]
>
> Create a new Power=1 rule titled "Card Administration" with the following
> text:
>
> Justice Cards are associated with the Ministry of Justice. Legislative
> Cards are associated with the Ministry of Legislation. Voting Cards are
> associated with the ministry of Participation.
>
> Officers CAN, once per month and by announcement, create a Card in the
> possession of any other non-zombie player under the following
> conditions:
>
> * the officer holds at least one office with the Card's associated
> ministry in its interests AND
>
> * the player receiving the Card does not hold an office with the Card's
> associated ministry in its interests.
>
> [I like this system a lot but I note the PM and Speaker can't receive cards
> this way. I'm open to patches but I think they'll likely be able to trade the
> cards they can create for the ones they need, so I'm not immediately
> concerned.]
I'd just yank the provision, but it can definitely be patched later.
-Aris
