DIS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] October Collection Notice
On 10/6/21 19:27, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > Power G.40% EEscapes Whoops, this is Jason's stone. I don't think this affects anything. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: [proto] Act on behalf, inactivity
On 10/6/2021 12:08 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > I guess you could make the "act on behalf" prohibitions also act as > prohibitions on things that a promise could do. That would sadden me a > little, because the equivalent of an "I become inactive." promise > (which I simulated using contracts back before promises existed) was my > #1 favourite currency at Agora, being generally useful All the actions performed in a promise are currently considered to be act-on-behalf actions, so that general prohibition is already existing (Rule 2618/4 extract): > By doing so, e acts on the creator of the > promise's behalf, causing the creator to act as if e published the > promise's text, and destroys the promise. That said, you don't need to be saddened yet because "inactivation" isn't a current prohibition, just a proposed one. I can see very good reasons for making activation prohibited (to prevent uncontrolled 'zombie' farming), but inactivtation seems harder though not impossible to abuse? As you say we don't really have any "be the only X" win conditions right now, but if we do add them that seems like good gameplay to keep. -G.
Re: DIS: [proto] Act on behalf, inactivity
On Wed, 2021-10-06 at 11:48 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > One subject of conversation on discord this month has been what should > inactive players be allowed to do in general (thinking mostly about > minimally-present people) and also what limits there should be to > act-on-behalf. This parallels what happened with zombies in 2018, when > act-on-behalf was powerful enough that nerfing was needed. > > Have compiled a list of *potential and existing* nerfs to both > act-on-behalf and inactivity - hoping for discussion of what should/should > not be on this list? One thing we probably need to think about first is how this interacts with Promises. The original intent of Promises was as a currency which was inherently backed by something, but few people seem to use them as that in practice. That use would be destroyed if inactive players' Promises couldn't be cashed, but allowing them to be cashed would be a workaround for most of the suggestions here. I guess you could make the "act on behalf" prohibitions also act as prohibitions on things that a promise could do. That would sadden me a little, because the equivalent of an "I become inactive." promise (which I simulated using contracts back before promises existed) was my #1 favourite currency at Agora, being generally useful in a wide range of situations (and generally acting to the benefit of the recipient without being significantly detrimental to the author); my usual modus operandi was to purchase them in advance and then cash them all at once to reduce the number of people who were blocking a "be the only X" victory condition. (This was generally to the benefit of the players who had offered them, because for the players that I didn't have a deal with, I needed to use more destructive methods, such as blotting, to get them out of the way.) Maybe a good middle ground is to allow inactivation on behalf, but not activation? (Also, maybe bring Win by Clout back? It seems difficult but potentially achievable under the current ruleset, and would grant extra uses to both of the "minor" types of Card. Maybe I should proto that, although not today as I'm about to go to bed.) -- ais523
DIS: [proto] Act on behalf, inactivity
One subject of conversation on discord this month has been what should inactive players be allowed to do in general (thinking mostly about minimally-present people) and also what limits there should be to act-on-behalf. This parallels what happened with zombies in 2018, when act-on-behalf was powerful enough that nerfing was needed. Have compiled a list of *potential and existing* nerfs to both act-on-behalf and inactivity - hoping for discussion of what should/should not be on this list? Early Proto: act-on-behalf prohibitions: support/object, intend dependent actions, invoke judgement, deliver judgements, register, deregister, bid in auctions, deputise, consent, pledge, make new promises, grant white ribbons, commit crime, activate/deactivate self, send a message. inactive prohibitions: economic salaries/grants, be assigned judgements, less vote strength, bid in auctions, be a non-interim Officer/election candidate, own stones. Also discussed were probation periods for new players (limiting act-on-behalf) and expiring act-on-behalf that must be renewed as oneself, but these are more complicated so just noting them in passing. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer plays Necropotence
On 10/6/2021 11:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 10/6/2021 4:58 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: >> With all due respects to Jumble who sees our contract as more of a way to >> screw me than a deal at this point- >> >> I Plan to Flip my Focus to Compliance. >> I Grant my Ministry's Focus to myself. > > If looking at the direct consequence of the above actions, I get for the > Plan to Flip: "if not re-planned before November, Jumble losing an > unknown %chance of a Victory Card, and a November Victory Point". > Furthermore, Jumble CAN still act-on-behalf of Cuddlebeam to change the > Plan before November, incurring no loss? (other than the effort). > > The value of the immediate grant is of course a victory point. Oops sorry, didn't cross-reference with my own Ministor notes! CB planned a flip to participation in Sept that happened Oct 1, so the current grant is a Voting Card not a Victory Point. (I don't think this affects the Plan valuation, given that Jumble could still act-on-behalf to plan whatever e wanted for November). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer plays Necropotence
On 10/6/2021 4:58 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > With all due respects to Jumble who sees our contract as more of a way to > screw me than a deal at this point- > > I Plan to Flip my Focus to Compliance. > I Grant my Ministry's Focus to myself. If looking at the direct consequence of the above actions, I get for the Plan to Flip: "if not re-planned before November, Jumble losing an unknown %chance of a Victory Card, and a November Victory Point". Furthermore, Jumble CAN still act-on-behalf of Cuddlebeam to change the Plan before November, incurring no loss? (other than the effort). The value of the immediate grant is of course a victory point. Please let me know if I missed some additional specific material loss caused by the contract breach (mitigating or aggravating circumstances, or the circumstance-based "coin valuation" of the above, are separate issues - just trying to make sure I've got the baseline right first). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Jumble, @Cuddlebeam, @ais523) [Referee] statements sought
On Wed, 2021-10-06 at 07:46 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > On 10/6/2021 7:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > PENDING FINGERS (does not self-ratify) > > == > > ais523 22-Sep > > "I point my finger at Cuddlebeam for violating rule 1742 by failing to > > act in accordance with the contract "Jumblebeam Deal". Specifically, e > > transferred eir last Victory Card, despite previously having been > > granted a Victory Card by the Ministor via Rule 2624, and Jumble not > > yet having transferred it to emself." > > > > Cuddlebeam 06-Oct > > "I Point my Finger at myself, Cuddlebeam, for violating "Jumblebeam Deal" > > in that I SHALL NOT Flip my Focus except as it states." > > > > Cuddlebeam 06-Oct > > "I Point my Finger at myself, Cuddlebeam, for violating "Jumblebeam Deal" > > in that I SHALL NOT grant my Focus Grant except as it states." > > As the above issues are contract-centered, I invite parties to the > contract, finger-pointers, or other interested third parties, to > submit briefs as to the harm caused by any contract breaches cited > above. For the first stated breach, Cuddlebeam has claimed that e was never actually granted a Victory Card, so the finger point may be factually incorrect (and was mostly a technicality in the first place). I admit that I just assumed that e would have received one by now, without actually checking. In any case, the harm would have been minor; it mostly just prevents Jumble from attempting a scam with dubious benefits. The other two are more of a problem. Basically, Cuddlebeam arranged a deal in which e would gain Jumble's Victory Points and Cards for one economic cycle, in exchange for Jumble gaining Cuddlebeam's Victory assets in the next. We're now in the "next cycle" part of that, and Cuddlebeam is trying to avoid eir end of the bargain (apparently due to thinking that the contract has become inequitable in some way). The actual amount of damage depends on a) how much use Jumble has for the Victory assets, and b) how much benefit Jumble gets from denying Cuddlebeam the Victory assets. There's definitely some amount of finanical consideration here: for a), Victory Cards often go for fairly high prices at auction, so if Jumble has no other use for them e could likely just sell them; and even b) has some financial value due to victory being based on comparative Victory Point holdings (a player who is close to a win could benefit from preventing a rival catching up). -- ais523
DIS: Re: [Ministor] Foci
On 10/6/2021 7:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Planning History > - > 18-Sep Cuddlebeam Legacy -> Participation > 18-Sep R. Lee Compliance -> Legislation (deregistered) > 20-Sep Jason Legislation -> Legislation > 29-Sep G. Legislation -> Compliance > 1-Oct (Above Plans Set) On 10/6/2021 4:58 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > I Plan to Flip my Focus to Compliance. Just a note to acknowledge I've noted Cuddlebeam's plan flip (the above history section is not self-ratifying).
DIS: Re: humble agoran farmer tests something
test On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 2:11 PM Cuddle Beam wrote: > this is just some mundane email stuff >
DIS: humble agoran farmer tests something
this is just some mundane email stuff
