DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Karma]
Relatively few people exist for me to give karma to at the moment. Wish we had more active players! On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 6:29 AM, Corona wrote: > > > Court: > > KarmaEntity > - > SAMURAI > - > +4 Aris <-- SHOGUN > +3 G. > +2 Trigon > +2 ATMunn > +1 Telnaior > +1 Alexis > +1 o > +1 Kenyon > +1 Corona > -1 Gaelan > -1 Quazie > -1 omd > -2 Murphy > -5 VJ Rada > -6 CuddleBeam <-- HONOURLESS WORM > - > GAMMAS > - > KarmaEntity > >All other entities have 0 Karma. > > --- > Notices of Honour: > > [New Week] > > Trigon (13 Apr 2018) > +1 Aris (eir patching work) > -1 Telnaior (inactive) > > Corona (12 Apr 2018) > -1 天火狐 (being inactive) > +1 Agora (rebalancing) > > April Karmic Balance > -1 Alexis > +1 ProofTechnique > +1 Ienpw III > -1 Agora > > VJ Rada (11 Apr 2018) > -1 o (not existing, karma high) > +1 Kenyon (rulekeeping) > > ATMunn (8 Apr 2018) > +1 CuddleBeam (rebalancing) > -1 Aris (rebalancing) > > [New Week] > > G. (2 Apr 2018) > +1 Gaelan (an excellent April Fools) > -1 G. (falling for it) > > [New Week] > > ATMunn (20 Mar 2018) > -1 ATMunn (positive karma inertia, and deregistering) > +1 CuddleBeam (being a good, contributing player recently) > > [New Week] > > Murphy (19 Mar 2018) > -1 Murphy (needing to be > reminded about election resolution) > +1 G. (reminding Murphy) > > G. (19 Mar 2018) > -1 G. (making Aris hunt for a pend message) > +1 Aris (leading the land fix proposal) > > [New Week] > > G. (7 Mar 2018) > -1 Gaelan (pinning complaints about eir job on someone else) > +1 CuddleBeam (not being shy about showing how legal moves work in the > subgame) > > Gaelan (7 Mar 2018) > -1 CuddleBeam (creating a large pile of transfers, inspiring others to do > so) > +1 Murphy (making Gaelan's job easier) > > Trigon (7 Mar 2018) > -1 Cuddle Beam (being the first to be that guy) > +1 Gaelan (his joke is hilarious) > > [New Week] > > Corona (28 Feb 2018) > -1 o (not a Player) > +1 Ienpw III (not a Player) > > VJ Rada (26 Feb 2018) > -1 o. (has positive karma despite not existing) > +1 Murphy (has negative karma despite existing) > > [New Week] > > V.J. Rada (25 Feb 2018) > +1 Aris (feels that he's underappreciated) > -1 CuddleBeam (there's a time and a place for KKK jokes which is not here) > > Aris (25 Feb 2018) > +1 V.J. Rada (having too low an honor for too long) > -1 CuddleBeam (per Gaelan's notice) > > Gaelan (24 Feb 2018) > +1 Trigon (a well-written proposal, despite the bugs) > -1 CuddleBeam (a joke in extremely bad taste) > > [New Week] > > Telnaior (12 Feb 2018) > -1 Telnaior (abusing Tailor powers) > +1 Corona (letting Agorans know of her inactivity) > > [New Week] > > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
I'm sure some of these pledges have been destroyed, including most of mine. On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) > > > Date of last report: 13 Mar 2018 > Date of this report: 22 Apr 2018 > (all times UTC) > > > BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying) > > PersonBlots > - > V.J. Rada1 > > > BLOT HISTORY (f=forgivable by R2557) > > PersonChange Date Reason > -- --- > V.J. Rada +1(f) 11 Apr 2018 12:01:44 Late Notary Report > > > FROM THE POLICE SCANNER (details of justice) > > From Aris (19 Apr 2018 07:04:56) > I point my finger at Corona for violations of Rule 2532, "Zombies", > and/or Rule 2466, "Acting on Behalf", committed by causing Quazie to > violate Rule 2550, "Bidding". > Referee Response (20 Apr 2018 05:38:13) > I find Shenanigans. Since the zombie act-on-behalf rule means > Corona CANNOT cause Quazie to perform illegal actions: >-If the bid was illegal, it failed and no crime was commited; >-If the bid was legal, no crime was committed. > > From V.J. Rada (11 Apr 2018 06:08:15) > I point my finger at G. for failing to attempt to deregister each > inactive player. I suppose that because this isn't officially related > to the duties of the Referee, G must judge himself. > Referee Response (11 Apr 2018 12:00:51) > Given that there has been no time in the recent past that I had > sufficient > support to do the job in question within the time limit, my initial > attempt that failed was as good as any other attempt would have been. > > I find Shenanigans. > > From Aris (10 Apr 2018 06:51:12) > I point my finger at V.J. Rada for failing to publish the Notary's weekly > report. In general I agreee with G.'s two week rule, but in this case the > person responsible failed to publish the report after being elected to the > office. > Referee Response (11 Apr 2018 12:01:44) > The facts are correct. Cold Hand of Justice Imposed: > > 2 Blots is the base penalty. I think a first offense of a missed report > should start with the lowest penalty (lowest common infraction as a > baseline). So I levy a fine of 1 blot on VJ Rada. > > This is forgivable, so does not take away salary for this month (no words > specified for the apology). > > I'm not sure for future if the 2nd or 3rd missed report (14 or 21 days > of "no work") would be the threshold for unforgivable for the purposes of > losing a month's salary. > > > RECENT PLEDGES > > G. (Made: 02-Apr-18 01:11:21. Fulfilled: 10-Apr-2018 18:00:04) > As Registrar, I pledge to publish a tally of supporters/objectors for each > below intent, at some time between 6 and 10 days after the below intents > were made. I pledge, that if the published ratios indicate sufficient > support to perform the actions and it is still otherwise POSSIBLE for me to > do so, I will perform the actions in the same document. > > > PLEDGES BEFORE March 15, 2018 > > Quazie - > I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can, > correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on > Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For > the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully > self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in > order to understand the explanation (So please, include all > source info in the explanation). > > V.J Rada - > I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to > the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to > attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all > other players. > > Gaelan (14 Sep 2017) - > I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any > proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless > the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed. > > nichdel - > I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by > Cuddle Beam. > > nichdel - > I pledge to Object to all intentions by Cuddle Beam that I can > object to. > > nichdel - > I pledge to give a trust token and 5 shinies (as soon as > possible) to any other player who also performs the above three > pledges, except Cuddle Beam. > > nichdel - > I pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus - > I too pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus - > I...pledge to fix the margins, if the issue is explained to me. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus - > I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is > still possible. > > G. (referring to CFJ 3575)- > I pledge that, if the below CFJ is found T
Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions
G. is spot on here, but I want to offer some clarifications. The reason this is done in such a roundabout way is that I wanted to encourage more actual playing. Option 2 exists because I wanted a way to republicize land. Option 1 exists to get currencies in the hands of more people. If something like this isn't passed, we definitely need to have methods to get land circulating again so that we never have so much proprietary land that new players can't conceivably get any. The other options are to promote public service benefiting the majority. To ensure that new players always have opportunities, we could try to prevent the fraction of proprietary land from getting up to 1/2 or we could have forced publication after it reaches 1/2. I do think that public service is a good idea that makes the map more interesting and that we should have some system to promote it, regardless of whether this proposal passes. TL;DR: I'm just trying to make the game interesting. On Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 11:35 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > The point is to charge some meaningful upkeep cost to zombie owners, > using the "scare" mechanism in the rules already. But I think this > version is needlessly complicated, and gameable as already pointed > out (by two zombie masters colluding), and isn't "scary". > > I think a simple "pay N to a neutral fund" (n can be a mixed basket) > does the trick. Maybe N is progressive depending on number of zombies > owned (making it near-impossible to have more than 2 in your chain, > say). > > Once the Neutral fund exists, a second step could be allowing use of > the neutral fund to do some of the below things (change land types or > whatnot). Those things could have a scary flavor. > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: > > Honestly, I've read all the replies, and I'm still not sure I entirely > get the > > point of this proposal. As is, I would likely just vote PRESENT. > > > > On 4/21/2018 5:39 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > > I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough > > > compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus: > > > > > > Title: Raising the stakes for zombies > > > AI: 2 > > > Author: Trigon > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text: > > > > > >The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the > > >possible values of a set containing any number of players. A > > >player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that > > >player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any > > >such players. > > > > > >For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to > "player > > >who in in either eir zombie network or a zombie network e is > in." > > > > > >For every player, the term "unbound player" is equivalent to > > >"player who is not in eir zombie network or any zombie network e > > >is in." > > > > > > Create a new rule, power 2, "Scary Public Actions" with text: > > > > > >When a rule calls for an entity to perform a Scary Public > Action, > > >that entity SHALL do one of the following: > > > > > >1. transfer 12 coins, 7 apples, and 4 papers to one or more > > > unbound players; > > >2. transfer two land units e owns to one or more unbound > players; > > >3. build a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit; > > >4. increase the rank of a facility on a public, unpreserved land > > > unit by at least 1; > > >5. pend 3 proposals submitted by unbound players; > > >6. destroy 10 or more apples (or equivalent) specifically in > > > actions that change the land type of land units from aether. > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
Two things: -You need to announce this as intent unless there was an earlier intent you announced. -Unfortunately, the way the Rule is written, "destroy" can mean either to retract/withdraw or to call in. You definitely don't want to call in. (that's another of those bug fix needed for clarity). On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > I destroy my pledges as well, without objection. > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2018, 12:14 Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) > > > > > > > > Date of last report: 13 Mar 2018 > > Date of this report: 22 Apr 2018 > > (all times UTC) > > > > > > BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying) > > > > PersonBlots > > - > > V.J. Rada1 > > > > > > BLOT HISTORY (f=forgivable by R2557) > > > > PersonChange Date Reason > > -- --- > > V.J. Rada +1(f) 11 Apr 2018 12:01:44 Late Notary Report > > > > > > FROM THE POLICE SCANNER (details of justice) > > > > From Aris (19 Apr 2018 07:04:56) > > I point my finger at Corona for violations of Rule 2532, "Zombies", > > and/or Rule 2466, "Acting on Behalf", committed by causing Quazie to > > violate Rule 2550, "Bidding". > > Referee Response (20 Apr 2018 05:38:13) > > I find Shenanigans. Since the zombie act-on-behalf rule means > > Corona CANNOT cause Quazie to perform illegal actions: > >-If the bid was illegal, it failed and no crime was commited; > >-If the bid was legal, no crime was committed. > > > > From V.J. Rada (11 Apr 2018 06:08:15) > > I point my finger at G. for failing to attempt to deregister each > > inactive player. I suppose that because this isn't officially related > > to the duties of the Referee, G must judge himself. > > Referee Response (11 Apr 2018 12:00:51) > > Given that there has been no time in the recent past that I had > > sufficient > > support to do the job in question within the time limit, my initial > > attempt that failed was as good as any other attempt would have been. > > > > I find Shenanigans. > > > > From Aris (10 Apr 2018 06:51:12) > > I point my finger at V.J. Rada for failing to publish the Notary's > > weekly > > report. In general I agreee with G.'s two week rule, but in this case > > the > > person responsible failed to publish the report after being elected to > > the > > office. > > Referee Response (11 Apr 2018 12:01:44) > > The facts are correct. Cold Hand of Justice Imposed: > > > > 2 Blots is the base penalty. I think a first offense of a missed > > report > > should start with the lowest penalty (lowest common infraction as a > > baseline). So I levy a fine of 1 blot on VJ Rada. > > > > This is forgivable, so does not take away salary for this month (no > > words > > specified for the apology). > > > > I'm not sure for future if the 2nd or 3rd missed report (14 or 21 days > > of "no work") would be the threshold for unforgivable for the purposes > > of > > losing a month's salary. > > > > > > RECENT PLEDGES > > > > G. (Made: 02-Apr-18 01:11:21. Fulfilled: 10-Apr-2018 18:00:04) > > As Registrar, I pledge to publish a tally of supporters/objectors for each > > below intent, at some time between 6 and 10 days after the below intents > > were made. I pledge, that if the published ratios indicate sufficient > > support to perform the actions and it is still otherwise POSSIBLE for me to > > do so, I will perform the actions in the same document. > > > > > > PLEDGES BEFORE March 15, 2018 > > > > Quazie - > > I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can, > > correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on > > Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For > > the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully > > self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in > > order to understand the explanation (So please, include all > > source info in the explanation). > > > > V.J Rada - > > I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to > > the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to > > attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all > > other players. > > > > Gaelan (14 Sep 2017) - > > I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any > > proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless > > the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed. > > > > nichdel - > > I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by > > Cuddle Beam. > > > > nichdel - > > I pledge to Object to all intentions by Cuddle Beam that I can > > object to. > > > > nichdel - > > I pledge to give a trust token and 5 shinies
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: > I still have that pledge? > > I intend, without objection, to withdraw all pledges that I own. > > [I think I might have done this before and just forgotten to actually follow > through with the intent.] For the record (for everyone), those older pledges were verbatim from CuddleBeam's March 13 Report. Since pledges are assets, the March 13 report has self-ratified. I didn't see any changes on those older ones since March 13 after searching on the word 'pledge', though of course I may have missed.
Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions
The point is to charge some meaningful upkeep cost to zombie owners, using the "scare" mechanism in the rules already. But I think this version is needlessly complicated, and gameable as already pointed out (by two zombie masters colluding), and isn't "scary". I think a simple "pay N to a neutral fund" (n can be a mixed basket) does the trick. Maybe N is progressive depending on number of zombies owned (making it near-impossible to have more than 2 in your chain, say). Once the Neutral fund exists, a second step could be allowing use of the neutral fund to do some of the below things (change land types or whatnot). Those things could have a scary flavor. On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, ATMunn wrote: > Honestly, I've read all the replies, and I'm still not sure I entirely get the > point of this proposal. As is, I would likely just vote PRESENT. > > On 4/21/2018 5:39 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough > > compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus: > > > > Title: Raising the stakes for zombies > > AI: 2 > > Author: Trigon > > Co-authors: > > > > Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text: > > > >The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the > >possible values of a set containing any number of players. A > >player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that > >player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any > >such players. > > > >For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player > >who in in either eir zombie network or a zombie network e is in." > > > >For every player, the term "unbound player" is equivalent to > >"player who is not in eir zombie network or any zombie network e > >is in." > > > > Create a new rule, power 2, "Scary Public Actions" with text: > > > >When a rule calls for an entity to perform a Scary Public Action, > >that entity SHALL do one of the following: > > > >1. transfer 12 coins, 7 apples, and 4 papers to one or more > > unbound players; > >2. transfer two land units e owns to one or more unbound players; > >3. build a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit; > >4. increase the rank of a facility on a public, unpreserved land > > unit by at least 1; > >5. pend 3 proposals submitted by unbound players; > >6. destroy 10 or more apples (or equivalent) specifically in > > actions that change the land type of land units from aether. > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: maybe only somewhat scary
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Agreed. I was about read to call for a motion of no confidence, but > > this is eminently reasonable. I think it's clear that zombies need > > to be substantially weakened, however. > > Yah, my main point in doing this (other than getting the Scare in) was > to show how darn powerful the zombies are currently, especially given > how undervalued the last zombie auction was. (and I didn't actually get the scary thing done - I would have had to announce it as being the scary thing when each zombie voted. oh well).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: maybe only somewhat scary
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Agreed. I was about read to call for a motion of no confidence, but > this is eminently reasonable. I think it's clear that zombies need > to be substantially weakened, however. Yah, my main point in doing this (other than getting the Scare in) was to show how darn powerful the zombies are currently, especially given how undervalued the last zombie auction was. In thinking about nerfing zombies, I think we don't want to chip away at their abilities piecemeal (e.g. limit ability to vote or other specific actions) because the interest in zombies is the ability to be creative with all their possible uses. I think the best is an absolute ownership limitation along with upkeep costs (a master can have a max of N zombies in eir direct or indirect command. For balance, N=1 probably make sense, though that may devalue zombie auctions).
Re: DIS: Proto: Scarier public actions
Honestly, I've read all the replies, and I'm still not sure I entirely get the point of this proposal. As is, I would likely just vote PRESENT. On 4/21/2018 5:39 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: I remember someone saying that scary public actions weren't enough compensation for all the power zombies provided. Thus: Title: Raising the stakes for zombies AI: 2 Author: Trigon Co-authors: Create a new rule, power 2, "Zombie Networks" with text: The zombie network of a player is an untracked switch with the possible values of a set containing any number of players. A player's zombie network consists of any zombies who have that player set as eir master switch, and the zombie networks of any such players. For every player, the term "bound player" is equivalent to "player who in in either eir zombie network or a zombie network e is in." For every player, the term "unbound player" is equivalent to "player who is not in eir zombie network or any zombie network e is in." Create a new rule, power 2, "Scary Public Actions" with text: When a rule calls for an entity to perform a Scary Public Action, that entity SHALL do one of the following: 1. transfer 12 coins, 7 apples, and 4 papers to one or more unbound players; 2. transfer two land units e owns to one or more unbound players; 3. build a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit; 4. increase the rank of a facility on a public, unpreserved land unit by at least 1; 5. pend 3 proposals submitted by unbound players; 6. destroy 10 or more apples (or equivalent) specifically in actions that change the land type of land units from aether.
