William P. Berard on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:36:29 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Revising 0x44's Refresh Proposal

Le 27 nov. 07, à 01:14, 0x44 a écrit :

> The majority of this is lifted unedited from BobTHJ's Refresh 
> proposal. My changes lie only in Rule 3-12 and 3-14. The gist of my 
> changes remove the concept of blueprints, make device creation a 
> proposal by the Artisan, and clean up the auctions.
> I revise my refresh proposal to read as follows:
> Amend Rule 3-12 to state:
> {{
> Devices:
> ---
> A "device" is a type of game object.
> Only players may own devices.
> There is an attribute "device owner": its scope is all devices; its 
> range is all players. The default value is defined when the device is 
> defined. The owner of any given device is the value of the device 
> owner attribute of that device. As a game action the owner of a device 
> may transfer ownership to any other player. In this case, the 
> ownership attribute changes to the new player.
> All devices are either "unique" or "non-unique". There cannot be more 
> than one of each unique device in the game at any given time. When a 
> non-unique device is defined, the definition must state how many such 
> devices exist.
> A device may have powers. Each power consists of an "effect" - what 
> happens when the power is used; "conditions" - things that must be 
> true for the effect to take place; and optionally a "trigger" - 
> something that must happen to trigger the effect. The rule or rules 
> defining a device detail the powers associated with it.
> If there is any choice to be made about how a device is triggered or 
> what objects it affects then the owner and only the owner of the 
> device makes that decision; and must make it when it is triggered. The 
> rules must explicitly state the nature of the choice. If there is any 
> other ambiguity in the rules about how a power assigned to a device 
> works, then that power has no effect.
> Price is an Attribute with a Scope of all devices, a Range of 
> nonnegative rational amounts of currency, and a Default Value of 50 
> mackerel.
> }}

How about including the possibility for an owner to destroy a device?  
I submitted this proposal today before the emergency. how about 
device-destroying devices?

> Amend Rule 3-14 to state:
> {{
> There exists a ministry known as the Ministry of Goods. The Minister 
> of Goods, also known as the Artisan, is responsible for maintaining a 
> Public Display of all currently existing devices and their Attributes, 
> Properties, and current states. In addition, the Artisan must maintain 
> a Public Display of all currently existing blueprints and their 
> Attributes, Properties, and default states.
> Once per nweek, the Artisan may, as a game action on behalf of the 
> Ministry of Goods create a proposal to define a single device, and can 
> do so no later than Ballotday of that nweek. On Ballotday this 
> proposal shall be made Open and voted upon. On nday1, if the proposal 
> succeeds, the device is created. If the proposal does not succeed, the 
> device is not created, cannot ever be created, and the Artisan loses 
> m50.

I like the idea of making the Artisan lose money there. Would the 
proposal be voted upon in the same fashion as regular proposals? 
tallying, quorum, awarding of points?

> Any player with sufficient currency may purchase a device from the 
> Ministry of Goods. Upon purchase, a device is instantly defined based 
> on a blueprint designated by this player, who becomes the device 
> owner. The price, as specified by the blueprint in question, is 
> instantly subtracted from this player's currency.

tsk tsk tsk.. what blueprint? you removed the concept of blueprint?

> To purchase a non-unique device, a player announces his intent via a 
> Public Forum, as a Game Action. The Artisan may, at any time and 
> without 2 objections within 2 ndays, alter the price of any non-unique 
> blueprint.
> Any unique device is put to auction immediately upon creation. Any 
> player, including the Artisan, may, as a Game Action, submit a 
> non-retractable bid via a Public Forum, specifying an amount of 
> mackerel. The highest amount of mackerel bid on a device is its price.

What if several players bid the full price? maybe the underlying 
assumption, there, is that the artisan will define a very high price so 
the maximum cannot be reached? I don't think a maximum bidding price is 
necessary... it is an auction, after all.

> Bidding ends at the start of Halfday [[nday 6]], at which time the 
> unique device is purchased, if possible, by the highest bidder. A 
> highest bidder with insufficient mackerel may attempt to collect 
> sufficient mackerel during 1 additional nday, at the end of which 
> purchase occurs if possible. If he fails to collect sufficient 
> mackerel, his Voting Power that nweek is set to 0, he loses 25 points, 
> and the next highest bidder may purchase the unique device 1 nday 
> later. If neither of the two highest bidders successfully purchases 
> the unique device, or if such bidders do not exist, the device ceases 
> to exist.
> }}

I think you're onto something good, but it needs a couple of tweak. 
Conceptually, however, I would appreciate it if players could submit 
device proposals. This could be amended later, mind you. I'd love to 
see a B nomic game where people could build, buy and sell things. This 
is why I ma attached to the notion of blueprints...

spoon-discuss mailing list