Saturday, April 12, 2025

Proposal: Not Stasis Breaking

With Kevan’s DEF, only 11 agents considered and so with 6 for votes, this has hit quorum

—Clucky

Adminned at 13 Apr 2025 23:47:21 UTC

If Stasis Breaker was enacted, this proposal does nothing.

Add a new paragraph at the end of “Guards and Burglars”:

Each Agent has a publicly tracked count of Successes, defaulting to the median value of Successes among all other Agents, rounded down.

Add a new list item to “The Break-In”, immediately before the list item starting “The Agents disperse”:

If any Burglar who Encountered no Guards during this atomic action has nonzero Loot, increase the Successes of all Burglars by one; otherwise, increase the Successes of all Guards by 1.

Then move the list item starting “The agents disperse” to be immediately after the list item starting “Post a blog entry”.

Set each Agent’s Successes to 0.

I have my own reasons for not wanting initial fame/infamy. If others share those reasons, here’s a version of ais’ fixes without it.

Comments

ais523:

12-04-2025 16:01:21 UTC

This has the problem that the first round can trivially be won by the Guards (we just park one Guard on each Ingress and then the Burglars can’t do anything), which in turn means that the Burglars will wait for proposals to pass rather than submit routes (and because of that, the Guards will wait too, to see how the ruleset changes before moving to the phase where they can no longer react to it).

You removed the part of my proposal that was intended to fix that issue – do you think that it isn’t a real issue, or are you planning to fix it some other way?

SingularByte: he/him

12-04-2025 19:08:30 UTC

This is one of these situations where hidden information plays a role in my actions, admittedly in direct contradiction of when I said to Clucky that it wouldn’t ever affect proposals.

Clucky: he/him

12-04-2025 23:48:24 UTC

for

JonathanDark: he/him

13-04-2025 01:08:00 UTC

for

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

13-04-2025 02:27:04 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

13-04-2025 02:30:12 UTC

for

ais523:

13-04-2025 04:09:59 UTC

against because I think SingularByte is probably pooling with someone, and don’t see how that benefits me.

JonathanDark: he/him

13-04-2025 04:11:54 UTC

Isn’t this set up for pooling, like Guards should pool with each other and so should Burglars? The key being that it won’t be with the same people each time, so there’s a little variety along the way.

If you’re doing this in isolation, I think you’re doing it wrong.

ais523:

13-04-2025 04:18:46 UTC

@JonathanDark: “Stasis Breaker” encourages burglar-with-burglar and guard-with-guard cooperation, and creates an initial condition in which burglars have some counterplay against Ingress-camping.

This proposal is similar, except it creates a situation where the burglars have no counterplay and will trivially lose the round. As such, if it’s better for SingularByte (a Burglar) than my proposal is, it implies that SingularByte is pooling with a Guard (rather than the other Burglars, like the theme implies). And that Guard is not me.

I strongly recommend that all the Burglars and all the Guards who are not pooling with someone on the other team vote against this (and in favour of Stasis Breaker) because it is clearly an attempt to benefit a currently hidden, cross-tean cabal.

Clucky: he/him

13-04-2025 06:18:33 UTC

not everyone writes every proposal to benefit themselves or their allies. most of the time a proposal is just a proposal someone is making to try and make the game more interesting

DoomedIdeas: he/him

13-04-2025 06:34:09 UTC

for

Kevan: Concierge he/him

13-04-2025 08:18:24 UTC

imperial

ais523:

13-04-2025 14:35:41 UTC

@Clucky: indeed, but when they write a near-duplicate of someone else’s proposal which removes one part, and say they have their own reasons for removing that part without elaborating, it’s almost always going to be a self-interested proposal.