DIS: Re: BUS: 3638 judgement
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018, Rebecca wrote: I find CFJ 3638 FALSE. The rules require reasons to be stated for a notice of honour. That clearly means additional text to the score change itself. You didn't address Cuddle Beam's argument that this doesn't apply when the target isn't a player. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: My Activity
I am currently on a short trip, but I will be returning either next week. You should expect decisions on CFJs 3652, 3653, and 3648 around Wednesday. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Revamping movement
I believe this institutes a clear cause-and-effect. Please notify me if
it doesn't, G..
Title: Revamping movement v3
AI: 1
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:
Amend rule 2003 "Actions in Arcadia" by replacing its text with:
Energy Points (abbreviated EP) is an untracked natural player
switch.
Players can eat a quantity of apples or corn. To eat is to pay a
fee of the stated quantity to increase your EP by one for each
apple and three for each corn.
Players can force-feed another player a quantity of apples or
corn. To force-feed is to pay a fee of the stated quantity to
increase the EP of another player using the values given above.
At the beginning of the week, each player's Energy Points switch
is flipped to 0.
Any player can perform any of the following actions by
announcement:
1. move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit. This action
decreases eir EP by:
a. 1 if the their Land Types are the same or one is gray;
b. 2 if their Land Types differ, neither is gray, and the
destination is not Aether.
3. set the Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to eir choice of
either Black or White. This action decreases eir EP by 2.
4. set the Land Type of a Land Unit that is adjacent to the
Entity's current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by
Agora, to an alternating Land Type. This action decreases eir
EP by 3.
5. set the Land Type of a Land Unit that is adjacent to the
Entity's current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by
Agora, to eir choice of either Black or White. This action
decreases eir EP by 4.
6. set the Land Type of any Land Unit that is of type Aether and
is owned by Agora, to an alternating Land Type. This action
decreases eir EP by 6.
7. Stake a Land Claim on a specified Land Unit that is adjacent to
the Entity's current location, is of type Aether, and is owned
by Agora, if and only if e is active, has not staked a land
claim in the current month, and has not won a land auction in
the current or previous month. When e stakes a land claim, the
unit's land type is set to the land type of eir choice, then is
transferred to em, then e moves onto that unit.
On 08/01/2018 11:05 AM, Corona wrote:
I'd prefer the shorter version ("I move to (x, y)), as that decreases the
potential for mistakes by automatically using the correct amount of
resources.
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
In adding the switch layer you need to put in a "by announcement" somewhere
as it's no longer implied as it is with payments/fees.
It's also a but unclear on cause and effect - do people decrease their EP
to cause
movement, or move and as a result have their EP decrease - This affects
whether
players have to specify the switch value when they move (ie do they say
"I decrease my EP by 1 to move to (a,b)" or just say "I move to (a,b)"
and have
the decrease happen without mentioning it). Again this is something
that's
described elsewhere if it's a fee, but not for a switch-action (I think
this will
be clarified depending on how you add the by-announcement bit).
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
I added some more shorthand and made the changes suggested. Somehow I
know
I've messed up something, though, so I'm not pending it just yet.
Title: Revamping movement v2
AI: 1
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:
Amend rule 2003 "Actions in Arcadia" by replacing its text with:
Energy Points (abbreviated EP) is an untracked natural player
switch.
Players can eat a quantity of apples or corn. To eat is to pay a
fee of the stated quantity to increase your EP by one for each
apple and three for each corn.
Players can force-feed another player a quantity of apples or
corn. To force-feed is to pay a fee of the stated quantity to
increase the EP of another player using the values given above.
At the beginning of the week, each player's Energy Points switch
is flipped to 0.
Any player can decrease eir Energy Points by:
1. 1 to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land
Types are the same and the destination is not Aether;
2. 2 to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land
Types differ and the destination is not Aether;
3. 2 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to either
Black or White.
4. 3 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit that is adjacent to the
Entity's current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by
Agora, to an alternating Land Type.
5. 4 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit that is adjacent to the
Entity's current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by
Agora, to either Black
Re: DIS: What's it all about then, eh?
In the Millenial Land System, Land Transfigurations were actually part of a larger mechanic called Sente and Gote. The idea is that if, at the end of the Land Transfigurations, one (non-aether) land type had more units than all other land types combined, that type is labeled Sente, while the rest are labeled Gote. All players on a Sente land type were given a few assets. Additionally, for each Sente LU a player owned, they were given a number of assets based on another mechanic, weather. From the SLR of Feb 2, 2003: * if the Weather is Plenty, 3 Stems for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns; * if the Weather is Fair, 2 Stems for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns; * if the Weather is Foul, 1 Stem for each 5 Land Units with Sente that e owns; This mechanic lingered in my mind as I read your messages. One switch that controls how prosperous we are as a community. I'm thinking we could bring back Sente and Gote and weather and then maybe connect it to what you're saying here somehow. Just some more things for future readers to think about. On 08/01/2018 11:02 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Land from the beginning has had little purpose, now that it's completely removed from the rest of the game it has no purpose at all. There's always been a kind of "if we build it, a purpose will show up" but so far - nope - currencies have in fact become less useful, not more (e.g. Paper). So I'd like to throw out a kind-of-different idea, I won't be able to work on it closely until ~Sept myself, but I wanted to plant the seed if anyone wants to run with it in the meantime or at least bat it about a bit. Land right now strongly reminds me of the 8-bit cult classic M.U.L.E., a worker placement game with a fantastic auction mechanic. One of the unique things is that it combined an individual win condition with a group win condition. The setting was a colony planet and you produced and traded/auctioned multiple commodities. The unique thing was that, at the end, the players were ranked 1..4 based on their wealth, but the whole colony was also ranked based on its collective wealth. If you were collectively poor, the result would be that you lived in "mud huts" and if you were all rich, you lived in "palatial estates" (there were levels in between). The design was such that if you played cutthroat and didn't trade, you'd end up on the bottom of the scale - and believe me taking 1st place while living in mud huts was a bit of a hollow victory. So my thought is to design the land-based win condition not just on reaching an individual goal, but on how well spread land or other measured of collective wealth are when you win. I was thinking that a win would, in addition to granting champion, would grant a ranked patent title similar to the old Cups in the current Scroll. Keeping with the landed theme, maybe noble theme - if you win while everyone is poor, you get the title Baron or Earl, but if everyone's rich you would forevermore have a title like Duke or Prince. It would take a bunch of rebalancing to favor trade - even with the cut-down refineries one person with lots of land can play solo, so it's not just slapping a win condition on top of the current production scheme. It would basically daylight some of the current behind-the- scenes auction dealings by encouraging deals to keep prices down. If it could be done with a system in which trade enriches everyone above solo play it would be something fairly unique that we haven't done before to my knowledge. Anyway, just wanted to leave something to ponder for now! -G. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions -- July week 4
They are banned from bidding in zombie auctions, not in land auctions. I suppose an alternative solution to the loophole would be to ban zombies from bidding in land auctions as well, but I feel we should leave _some_ benefits to owning a zombie, otherwise there's not a lot of point. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On August 1, 2018 5:17 PM, Corona wrote: > Wait... aren't zombies banned from bidding? How does this work? > > On Wednesday, August 1, 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > On July 30, 2018 9:45 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > > > (For reassurance: Using the zombie is not an attempt to get around the > > > pledges/promises; I'm intending to exploit a totally different loophole. > > > In > > > fact I don't think it would even work to evade the promises, since I'm > > > still bidding, just not on my own behalf.) > > > > I transfer all liquid assets in the possession of the orchard at (+5, 0) to > > myself. > > I act on behalf of Kenyon to transfer all liquid assets in the possession > > of > > the mine at (-1, +2) to Kenyon. I act on behalf of Kenyon to transfer all > > eir > > liquid assets to myself. > > As I have not won a land auction in the current or previous Agoran month, I > > destroy 1 corn to Stake a Land Claim on (+5, -1). I choose for (+5, -1) to > > be > > white. > > I act on behalf of Kenyon to submit and pend the following proposal: > > // > > Title: Return of the Zombie Loopholes > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Kenyon > > Co-authors: twg > > Amend rule 2003, "Actions in Arcadia", by replacing the text "and has > > not won a land auction in the current or previous month" with "and has > > not, in the current or previous month, either won a land auction or > > been the master of a zombie when the zombie won a land auction". > > // > > I destroy 8 lumber and 4 stones to build a loom at (+5, -1). I transfer > > all my > > cotton to the loom at (+5, -1). > > -twg > > -- > > ~Corona
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions -- July week 4
Wait... aren't zombies banned from bidding? How does this work? On Wednesday, August 1, 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On July 30, 2018 9:45 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > (For reassurance: Using the zombie is not an attempt to get around the > pledges/promises; I'm intending to exploit a totally different loophole. In > fact I don't think it would even work to evade the promises, since I'm > still bidding, just not on my own behalf.) > > I transfer all liquid assets in the possession of the orchard at (+5, 0) to > myself. > > I act on behalf of Kenyon to transfer all liquid assets in the possession > of > the mine at (-1, +2) to Kenyon. I act on behalf of Kenyon to transfer all > eir > liquid assets to myself. > > As I have not won a land auction in the current or previous Agoran month, I > destroy 1 corn to Stake a Land Claim on (+5, -1). I choose for (+5, -1) to > be > white. > > I act on behalf of Kenyon to submit and pend the following proposal: > // > Title: Return of the Zombie Loopholes > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Kenyon > Co-authors: twg > > Amend rule 2003, "Actions in Arcadia", by replacing the text "and has > not won a land auction in the current or previous month" with "and has > not, in the current or previous month, either won a land auction or > been the master of a zombie when the zombie won a land auction". > > // > > I destroy 8 lumber and 4 stones to build a loom at (+5, -1). I transfer > all my > cotton to the loom at (+5, -1). > > -twg > -- ~Corona
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Revamping movement
I'd prefer the shorter version ("I move to (x, y)), as that decreases the
potential for mistakes by automatically using the correct amount of
resources.
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> In adding the switch layer you need to put in a "by announcement" somewhere
> as it's no longer implied as it is with payments/fees.
>
> It's also a but unclear on cause and effect - do people decrease their EP
> to cause
> movement, or move and as a result have their EP decrease - This affects
> whether
> players have to specify the switch value when they move (ie do they say
> "I decrease my EP by 1 to move to (a,b)" or just say "I move to (a,b)"
> and have
> the decrease happen without mentioning it). Again this is something
> that's
> described elsewhere if it's a fee, but not for a switch-action (I think
> this will
> be clarified depending on how you add the by-announcement bit).
>
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > I added some more shorthand and made the changes suggested. Somehow I
> know
> > I've messed up something, though, so I'm not pending it just yet.
> >
> > Title: Revamping movement v2
> > AI: 1
> > Author: Trigon
> > Co-authors:
> >
> > Amend rule 2003 "Actions in Arcadia" by replacing its text with:
> > Energy Points (abbreviated EP) is an untracked natural player
> > switch.
> >
> > Players can eat a quantity of apples or corn. To eat is to pay a
> > fee of the stated quantity to increase your EP by one for each
> > apple and three for each corn.
> >
> > Players can force-feed another player a quantity of apples or
> > corn. To force-feed is to pay a fee of the stated quantity to
> > increase the EP of another player using the values given above.
> >
> > At the beginning of the week, each player's Energy Points switch
> > is flipped to 0.
> >
> > Any player can decrease eir Energy Points by:
> >
> > 1. 1 to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land
> > Types are the same and the destination is not Aether;
> >
> > 2. 2 to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land
> > Types differ and the destination is not Aether;
> >
> > 3. 2 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to either
> > Black or White.
> >
> > 4. 3 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit that is adjacent to the
> > Entity's current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by
> > Agora, to an alternating Land Type.
> >
> > 5. 4 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit that is adjacent to the
> > Entity's current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by
> > Agora, to either Black or White.
> >
> > 6. 6 to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that is of type Aether
> > and is owned by Agora, to an alternating Land Type.
> >
> > 7. 3 to Stake a Land Claim on a specified Land Unit that is
> > adjacent to the Entity's current location, is of type Aether,
> > and is owned by Agora, if and only if e is active, has not
> > staked a land claim in the current month, and has not won a
> > land auction in the current or previous month. When e stakes a
> > land claim, the unit's land type is set to the land type of eir
> > choice, then is transferred to em, then e moves onto that unit.
> >
> > On 07/31/2018 06:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. The proposal currently says "Players
> > > can destroy one apple to increase eir...". Players is plural, whereas
> > > eir is singular, so they do not agree in number. You could change eir
> > > to their, but I was suggesting that it might be clearer to make the
> > > subject singular. It would then change to "A player can destroy one
> > > apple to increase eir...", because only one player is destroying an
> > > apple. The same is also true for corn.
> > >
> > > Another change that just occurred to me is that you should make it a
> > > fee. So it would be "A player can increase eir EP by 1 for a fee of an
> > > apple". The new syntax was introduced by Proposal 8055.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:09 PM Reuben Staley >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Can you explain this? I don't understand what you're saying I should
> to.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018, 18:00 Aris Merchant <
> > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > A playercan destroy... Eir is singular, and you're really talking
> about
> > > > > one
> > > > > player at a time anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Aris
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:16 PM Reuben Staley <
> reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This is something I've been meaning to do for a long time. It's
> taken
> > > > > > from MALF. I submit and pend the following proposal:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Title: Revamping movement
> > > > > > AI: 1
> > > > > > Author: Trigon
> > > > >
DIS: What's it all about then, eh?
Land from the beginning has had little purpose, now that it's completely removed from the rest of the game it has no purpose at all. There's always been a kind of "if we build it, a purpose will show up" but so far - nope - currencies have in fact become less useful, not more (e.g. Paper). So I'd like to throw out a kind-of-different idea, I won't be able to work on it closely until ~Sept myself, but I wanted to plant the seed if anyone wants to run with it in the meantime or at least bat it about a bit. Land right now strongly reminds me of the 8-bit cult classic M.U.L.E., a worker placement game with a fantastic auction mechanic. One of the unique things is that it combined an individual win condition with a group win condition. The setting was a colony planet and you produced and traded/auctioned multiple commodities. The unique thing was that, at the end, the players were ranked 1..4 based on their wealth, but the whole colony was also ranked based on its collective wealth. If you were collectively poor, the result would be that you lived in "mud huts" and if you were all rich, you lived in "palatial estates" (there were levels in between). The design was such that if you played cutthroat and didn't trade, you'd end up on the bottom of the scale - and believe me taking 1st place while living in mud huts was a bit of a hollow victory. So my thought is to design the land-based win condition not just on reaching an individual goal, but on how well spread land or other measured of collective wealth are when you win. I was thinking that a win would, in addition to granting champion, would grant a ranked patent title similar to the old Cups in the current Scroll. Keeping with the landed theme, maybe noble theme - if you win while everyone is poor, you get the title Baron or Earl, but if everyone's rich you would forevermore have a title like Duke or Prince. It would take a bunch of rebalancing to favor trade - even with the cut-down refineries one person with lots of land can play solo, so it's not just slapping a win condition on top of the current production scheme. It would basically daylight some of the current behind-the- scenes auction dealings by encouraging deals to keep prices down. If it could be done with a system in which trade enriches everyone above solo play it would be something fairly unique that we haven't done before to my knowledge. Anyway, just wanted to leave something to ponder for now! -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Revamping movement
In adding the switch layer you need to put in a "by announcement" somewhere as it's no longer implied as it is with payments/fees. It's also a but unclear on cause and effect - do people decrease their EP to cause movement, or move and as a result have their EP decrease - This affects whether players have to specify the switch value when they move (ie do they say "I decrease my EP by 1 to move to (a,b)" or just say "I move to (a,b)" and have the decrease happen without mentioning it). Again this is something that's described elsewhere if it's a fee, but not for a switch-action (I think this will be clarified depending on how you add the by-announcement bit). On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: > I added some more shorthand and made the changes suggested. Somehow I know > I've messed up something, though, so I'm not pending it just yet. > > Title: Revamping movement v2 > AI: 1 > Author: Trigon > Co-authors: > > Amend rule 2003 "Actions in Arcadia" by replacing its text with: > Energy Points (abbreviated EP) is an untracked natural player > switch. > > Players can eat a quantity of apples or corn. To eat is to pay a > fee of the stated quantity to increase your EP by one for each > apple and three for each corn. > > Players can force-feed another player a quantity of apples or > corn. To force-feed is to pay a fee of the stated quantity to > increase the EP of another player using the values given above. > > At the beginning of the week, each player's Energy Points switch > is flipped to 0. > > Any player can decrease eir Energy Points by: > > 1. 1 to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land > Types are the same and the destination is not Aether; > > 2. 2 to move from one Land Unit to an adjacent Unit if their Land > Types differ and the destination is not Aether; > > 3. 2 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit which e owns to either > Black or White. > > 4. 3 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit that is adjacent to the > Entity's current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by > Agora, to an alternating Land Type. > > 5. 4 to set the Land Type of a Land Unit that is adjacent to the > Entity's current location, is of type Aether, and is owned by > Agora, to either Black or White. > > 6. 6 to set the Land Type of any Land Unit that is of type Aether > and is owned by Agora, to an alternating Land Type. > > 7. 3 to Stake a Land Claim on a specified Land Unit that is > adjacent to the Entity's current location, is of type Aether, > and is owned by Agora, if and only if e is active, has not > staked a land claim in the current month, and has not won a > land auction in the current or previous month. When e stakes a > land claim, the unit's land type is set to the land type of eir > choice, then is transferred to em, then e moves onto that unit. > > On 07/31/2018 06:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I'm sorry for my lack of clarity. The proposal currently says "Players > > can destroy one apple to increase eir...". Players is plural, whereas > > eir is singular, so they do not agree in number. You could change eir > > to their, but I was suggesting that it might be clearer to make the > > subject singular. It would then change to "A player can destroy one > > apple to increase eir...", because only one player is destroying an > > apple. The same is also true for corn. > > > > Another change that just occurred to me is that you should make it a > > fee. So it would be "A player can increase eir EP by 1 for a fee of an > > apple". The new syntax was introduced by Proposal 8055. > > > > -Aris > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:09 PM Reuben Staley > > wrote: > > > > > > Can you explain this? I don't understand what you're saying I should to. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018, 18:00 Aris Merchant < > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > A playercan destroy... Eir is singular, and you're really talking about > > > > one > > > > player at a time anyway. > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 4:16 PM Reuben Staley > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is something I've been meaning to do for a long time. It's taken > > > > > from MALF. I submit and pend the following proposal: > > > > > > > > > > Title: Revamping movement > > > > > AI: 1 > > > > > Author: Trigon > > > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > > > > > Amend rule 2003 "Actions in Arcadia" by replacing its text with: > > > > > Energy Points (abbreviated EP) is an untracked natural player > > > > > switch. Players can destroy one apple to increase eir Energy > > > > > Points by one. Players can destroy one corn to increase eir > > > > > Energy Points by three. At the beginning of the week, each > > > > >
