Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Proposal

[Jeffrey_Schroeder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

>> If a Rule contains instructions for an Agent to perform a task "as =
>soon=20
>> as possible" or similarly known time frame, and while the Agent does =
>not=20
>
>Note that we already have a rule defining how to perform an action which =
>is to be performed asap. I don't really like that rule and I'd prefer =
>your version, but you should probably revise the existing rule rather =
>than create another definition.

I didn't realize there was a different rule - I will take that into account.  Does anyone
have any preference toward the current rule? R305/0.

>> the Sackee to the Sacker with a total purchased value of no more than=20
>> 30% the Sackee's Points or 3 Objects/Items, whichever has a greater=20
>> value. The Sacker can choose the Penalty based on these guides.
>
>The purchase value of 3 Objects might actually be quite high, if the =
>player happens to own some expansive objects. Also three objects is =
>quite a lot, since the Sacker will probably select the 3 most valuable =
>objects. If someone for example has all three stamps, that would be 180 =
>points, far more than 30% of one's points would ever be (180 =3D 0.3 * =
>600, so you'd need 600 points to get an equal punishment in points).

This is true, of course there are other objects that are not worth much at all in
comparison.  Such as Go pieces.  I might change it to the lesser of the two.
I am most concerned about objects with no defined value such as NomicHomes
- any suggestions?

>> there is no penalty.  If the Sacker does not feel appeased, e can =
>submit=20
>> an Approveable Primary Motion called 'Give Me Justice' to the game in=20
>> order to receive his Penalty defined in the Motion to Sack.  Upon=20
>> passage of 'Give Me Justice' e must receive as soon as possible=20
>> the Penalty=20
>> from the Sackee minus a 20% fee to be transferred to the Bank.=20
>
>I don't like this. It means the first one to make a Motion to Sack will =
>receive the penalty, and others receive nothing.

In some ways this was the point. I was attempting to think of something that could
be used for Player to Player crimes, etc. versus crimes against the game or everyone.
I thought that this could be used in conjunction with the Lynching rule depending
on what occurred.

>This might cause a flood of Motions to Sack, simply because people want =
>to get the points that they'll get if it succeeds. And there isn't any =
>penalty for unsuccessfully trying to sack someone.

This is also true.  I have the safeguard against just taking people's stuff with the approveable
motion, but nothing concerning a flood of Motions.  I will make a new version soon.

jeff