Monday, March 16, 2020

Proposal: White Elephants

Passes 8-0. Enacted by Brendan.

Adminned at 17 Mar 2020 16:24:39 UTC

To the penultimate paragraph of “Items”, add:-

If an Item’s Impacts are all Distracting and/or Unfashionable, then that Item is Undesirable; otherwise it is Desirable.

In “Auctions”, replace “An Item’s Winner is the Nobleman who made the highest bid of Money plus Power for it (in the event of a tie, highest Power wins; if it is still a tie then the Item has no Winner).” with:-

A Desirable Item’s Winner is the Nobleman who made the highest bid of Money plus Power for it (in the event of a tie, highest Power wins; if it is still a tie then the Item has no Winner). An Undesirable Item’s Winner is the Nobleman who made the lowest bid of Money plus Power for it (in the event of a tie, lowest Power wins; if it is still a tie then the tie is resolved in a secretly random manner by the Louis XIV).

Replace the “Increasing the Debt of these Winners by the Money (if any) they spent on their winning bids” bullet point with:-

* For each Desirable Item, increasing the Debt of its Winner by the Money (if any) they spent on their winning bids
* For each Undesirable Item, increasing the every Debt of every Nobleman who bid on it by the Money (if any) they spent on their bids

After the first paragraph of “Auctions”, add:-

If a Nobleman makes no Bid on an Auction by the time it closes, they are considered to have made a single Bid of zero Money and zero Power on it.

Replace “-1 Power to a minimum of zero” with “-1 Power” in Items.

Nobody’s going to bid on the purely Distracting and Unfashionable items. But why would our king offer them to us, if he did not want us to own them?

Comments

Josh: he/him

16-03-2020 12:37:23 UTC

Do bids currently have to be positive?

This might be a good place to fix distracting (“Distracting (-1 Power to a minimum of zero)” - but Power can be negative) as well.

Does this mean that must Undesirable items will be won by semi-active players? I’m not sure how I feel about that - it incentivises being involved but disincentivises getting involved if you haven’t already.

Kevan: he/him

16-03-2020 12:47:41 UTC

Yes, to Bids being positive. They’re described as a “spend”, and “Unless otherwise specified, only positive amounts can be spent, lost, gained, or transferred”.

Distraction cap fixed.

And yes, as written these will go to the less active players, and most likely be easily dodged with a bid of 1. We can always think about ways to avoid that later on, it’s not going to be an issue for at least four days.

Josh: he/him

16-03-2020 14:48:24 UTC

for

Ninja:

16-03-2020 15:04:08 UTC

so wait, doesnt it specify that only the debt of thw winner increases? so only the person with the lowest bid will lose money in an undesirable auction, and also get the terrible item, so wont everyone just bid arbitrarily large amounts of money?

Ninja:

16-03-2020 15:06:34 UTC

“Increasing the Debt of these Winners by the Money (if any) they spent on their winning bids”
is the text used, so there is literally no reason not to bid infinity each time for undesirable items.

Josh: he/him

16-03-2020 15:10:45 UTC

@Ninja - That’s the current text - this proposal changes it to “* For each Undesirable Item, increasing the every Debt of every Nobleman who bid on it by the Money (if any) they spent on their bids” - so bidding infinity means spending infinity, even if you don’t win the bid.

Ninja:

16-03-2020 15:23:30 UTC

imperial

naught:

16-03-2020 16:28:53 UTC

for

TyGuy6:

16-03-2020 18:02:01 UTC

“in the event of a tie, lowest Power wins;” means lowest power bid, not lowest current power of bidding Nobles, right? My mind was going off in the direction of intentionally reducing power in order to win more elephant items. :P

Jumble:

16-03-2020 19:13:07 UTC

for

Darknight: he/him

16-03-2020 19:18:40 UTC

for

card:

16-03-2020 19:31:47 UTC

for

Josh: he/him

16-03-2020 20:20:21 UTC

@TyGuy6 that’s how I’m interpreting it, yes!

Brendan: he/him

17-03-2020 16:14:09 UTC

for