Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
Janet wrote: On 1/22/2023 1:55 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 1/22/23 12:42, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: Janet wrote: [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions, which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation actually putting the Stonemason on different footing may have been repealed earlier than that (I spot-checked about four months back but didn't spot anything relevant). The Mason's stone both does nothing and will generally be owned by me, and thus count towards the 30-day lockout for getting actually useful stones. Seems like just repealing it would fix both issues. Does being the Stonemason give any advantage on the 30-day thing? Again, I suspect it was originally enacted to solve some problem that no longer exists. It would theoretically give the Stonemason first dibs after collection notices. How about just disallowing transfers within 24 hours after a collection notice, or something like that?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
On 1/22/23 12:42, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > Janet wrote: > [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to >>> Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions, >>> which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation >>> actually putting the Stonemason on different footing may have been >>> repealed earlier than that (I spot-checked about four months back but >>> didn't spot anything relevant). >> The Mason's stone both does nothing and will generally be owned by me, >> and thus count towards the 30-day lockout for getting actually useful >> stones. > Seems like just repealing it would fix both issues. Does being the > Stonemason give any advantage on the 30-day thing? Again, I suspect > it was originally enacted to solve some problem that no longer exists. It would theoretically give the Stonemason first dibs after collection notices. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
Janet wrote: [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions, which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation actually putting the Stonemason on different footing may have been repealed earlier than that (I spot-checked about four months back but didn't spot anything relevant). The Mason's stone both does nothing and will generally be owned by me, and thus count towards the 30-day lockout for getting actually useful stones. Seems like just repealing it would fix both issues. Does being the Stonemason give any advantage on the 30-day thing? Again, I suspect it was originally enacted to solve some problem that no longer exists.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
On 1/15/23 15:47, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > Janet wrote: > >> [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful >> stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to > Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions, > which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation > actually putting the Stonemason on different footing may have been > repealed earlier than that (I spot-checked about four months back but > didn't spot anything relevant). The Mason's stone both does nothing and will generally be owned by me, and thus count towards the 30-day lockout for getting actually useful stones. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
Janet wrote: [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to Is this actually true? I thought that had something to do with auctions, which were repealed about a month ago, and any rule or regulation actually putting the Stonemason on different footing may have been repealed earlier than that (I spot-checked about four months back but didn't spot anything relevant).
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Slightly less self-interested proposal
On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 4:25 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Nerfed Mason's Stone buff
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> Adoption index: 2.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") by replacing the list item beginning
> "Mason's Stone" with the following:
>
> {
>
> - Mason's Stone (Monthly, 0): If the Mason's Stone is owned by the
> Stonemason, its Mossiness is continuously set to 0. If the Mason's Stone
> is owned by Agora, it is transferred to the Stonemason. When wielded, the
> mossiest stone owned by Agora (or, if there is a tie, a specified stone
> tied
> for the same) is transferred to the wielder.
>
> }
>
> [Currently, I'm effectively locked out of owning any actually useful
> stone without setting a Dream, which isn't really fair. If I attempt to
> get rid of the Mason's stone, it can be forcibly transferred back to me
> or will eventually be automatically transferred back to me, resetting
> the 30 day time limit again. I can't pawn it off on an inactive player,
> since only active players can hold stones, and if I transfer it to an
> active player I reset their stone delay, likely angering them and
> probably just getting it transferred back. This change would allow me to
> actually participate in the part of the stone game that allows doing
> things with stones.]
>
> }
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
I think I'd rather the mason's stone just be repealed. What's the point of
having it, anyways?
--
snail
