Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Proposal: Cap and Trade v2

Timed out 1 vote to 2. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 29 Oct 2015 19:16:17 UTC

In dynastic rule Benefices, replace:

All Cardinals have Benefices, a number tracked in the GNDT. The default value is 1. As a Church Action, a Cardinal may reduce their Influence by 1 to increase their Benefices by 1. As a Church Action, a Cardinal may reduce their Benefices by 1 to increase the Benefices of another Cardinal by 1.

with:

All Cardinals have Benefices, a number tracked in the GNDT.  The default value is 1. The total number of available Benefices is 50. As a Church Action, a Cardinal may reduce their Influence by 1 to increase their Benefices by 1 given that the the action does not result in a total number of benefices greater than 50. Cardinals may trade benefices amongst themselves by making a story post to that effect, indicating as such with the title “Trade:.” Cardinals wishing to bid on the offered benefices must do so in the form of a comment on that story post.

A trade may be resolved by an admin if there is an agreement between two Cardinals as to the terms of the trade, making said changes in the GNDT. If after 48 hours there is no agreement on terms of a trade, the offer is no longer considered valid.

Re-proposing with some modifications based on comments to the last version.

Comments

Kevan:

10-27-2015 18:45:39 UTC

I like the cap idea, but trading is broken: “an agreement between two Cardinals” doesn’t actually require either of those Cardinals to be the ones involved in the trade.

And in fact, we can already trade Benefices: “As a Church Action, a Cardinal may reduce their Benefices by 1 to increase the Benefices of another Cardinal by 1.” - we could cost it differently, but I’m not sure why we need anything more than that when there’s only a single resource that’s being traded.

against

delcooper11:

10-28-2015 17:08:58 UTC

The idea here is that you can trade other items for benefices. Influence, nepotism, etc.

Kevan:

10-28-2015 17:47:44 UTC

Ah, fair enough. Saying that players can “trade benefices amongst themselves” sounds like it’s just about trading that single resource back and forth, and I think that’s all that a strict reading of the rule would actually allow.

Completely free trade of “etc” becomes risky. It’s my favourite way of shutting down a game of Monopoly, just having two players who freely trade their resources as required (effectively “at the start of your turn, I trade you all my money and properties in exchange for nothing, agreed?”), making them a single player with twice the resources and turns of everyone else.

delcooper11:

10-28-2015 18:10:27 UTC

I agree that there could be some more structure around trading, but I left it purposefully vague at the beginning so that the group could add restrictions with future proposals.

Brendan:

10-29-2015 07:02:25 UTC

against