On 5/18/23 23:51, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> Create a new power-3 rule, "Raybots":
> {{{
> A Raybot is a type of entity that has been created using the process
> described in this rule. Raybots CANNOT be created except as specified
> by this rule, and entities that came to exist by any other means are
> not Raybots.
>
> Raybots are persons. Raybots are created with their Citizenship switch
> set to Registered and their Radiance switch set to 40. Raybots agree to
> abide by the Rules.
May want to say "Immediately after a Raybot is created, eir Citizenship
switch is set to...", just to avoid the fencepost issue?
> Motivation is an untracked Raybot switch whose possible values are
> texts, and whose default value is "I deregister."
I'm not sure this exactly matters, but this promise wouldn't be
resolvable since deregistration on behalf is prohibited.
> A player CAN create a Raybot with a specified Motivation with 2 Agoran
> Consent, unless a Raybot with an identical Motivation was created
> within the previous 14 days, and SHOULD specify a name for the Raybot
> when doing so.
>
> If, for any given Raybot, at least one of the following conditions is
> continuously true for at least 10 seconds, that Raybot ceases to exist:
> * e is not a player, and/or
> * e is not the creator of any currently existing Promises, and/or
> * eir Radiance is 0.
>
> When a Raybot is created, it grants the Library a promise, becoming the
> creator of that promise, and whose text is that Raybot's Motivation.
>
> Raybots CANNOT support or object to tabled actions. The voting strength
> of a Raybot on an Agoran Decision is 0.
May want to add a RttCN clause to the support/objection prohibition.
Also, this should probably add a large fixed decrease to voting strength
to ensure it really stays 0 (which we may also want to do for festivals,
come to think of it).
Here's the list of zombie prohibitions as of its repeal:
> The master of a zombie CAN act on behalf of em, except a master
> CANNOT act on behalf of a zombie to:
> - initiate, support, object to, or perform a dependent action;
> - act on behalf of that zombie's zombies;
> - bid in a zombie auction;
> - enter a contract, pledge, or other type of agreement;
> - initiate a Call for Judgement;
> - create blots;
> - deregister.
> Players SHALL NOT cause Raybots to perform ILLEGAL actions.
This turns any infraction into a class-2 infraction if it can be done
through a Raybot.
> In rule 2618, amend
> {{{
> A consenting player CAN, by announcement, grant a specified entity a
> promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator.
> }}}
> to
> {{{
> A Raybot or a consenting player CAN, by announcement, grant a specified
> entity a promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator.
> }}}
> [It's an interesting philosophical question as to whether Raybots can
> consent to things, so avoid the issue by making it possible for Raybots
> to create promises by announcement even if they don't consent to them.
> For what it's worth, rule 2519(3) means that the Raybot probably is
> consenting, but it's better to make it clear.]
What happens to such promises when the Raybot ceases to exist?
> Create a new power-1.5 rule, "Raybot Transfer":
> {{{
> A Raybot CAN spend a specified amount of radiance to grant that much
> radiance to a specified player.
>
> A player CAN spend a specified amount of radiance to grant that much
> radiance to a specified Raybot.
> }}}
"non-Raybot"? Also, this arguably makes a Raybot directly transferring
to another Raybot ambiguous, as there are two methods that could be used
(even if they do the same thing).
> In rule 2659, amend
> {{{
> For each person there is a corresponding type of stamp.
> }}}
> to
> {{{
> For each non-Raybot person there is a corresponding type of stamp.
> }}}
What happens if a stamp would be created of a Raybot's type (e.g. if it
had the Wealth dream)? Might be cleaner to continuously destroy stamps
of Raybot type instead.
> {{{
> Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps, where N is the current number of
> active players and each specified Stamp is of a different type.
> }}}
> to
> {{{
> Any player CAN win by paying N Stamps, where N is the current number of
> active non-Raybot players and each specified Stamp is of a different
> type.
> }}}
> [Prevent Raybots from being counting towards Stamp victories, as they
> would badly unbalance them if created in number.]
> }}}}
Just for defense-in-depth, "each specified Stamp is of a different
non-Raybot type"?
> I'm interested in feedback about both the general idea, and the wording
> of the proposal to implement it. I am encouraged that, despite being an
> apparently major mechanic, it doesn't add much text to the rules,
> because it's mostly building on what's there at the moment.
>
I'm not sure that I want this gameplay, though I agree that it's
interesting. (This is "I'm legitimately undecided", not "I weakly think
I don't want it".)
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
