Proposal 310 Stock Market

Moderators: Crunkus, connect4

Re: Proposal 310 Stock Market

Postby pjkon » 21 Mar 2014, 15:48

super_dipsy wrote:I don't really understand IIb, IIf

b) The flow of stock may occur through a transfer of a stock in the same way that a transfer of currency may take place, but a player may make two currency transfers and still make a stock transfer. Stocks may also change hands through sale.


Can you help me to understand what this means? Does it imply that a player cannot make more than two currency transfers and also a stock transfer? I am not actually sure I understand how a currency is transferred either, but that is probably because I haven't read the particular rule. Can you point me to the right bit or clarify?

Players are not allowed to make more then 2 currency transfers under the current rules. This just allows us to transfer stocks without using up one of our allowed currency transfers.

f) Sale of Stock: players may make conditional transfers of currency related to transfers of stock, and so sell stock to each other

How? And upon what is it conditional?

[color=#008000]Edited the rule to make this more clear.


[/color]
g) For Sale: Stocks may become “For Sale” at the end of voting phases through legacy forfeits or through sale by players or through other means defined by this or future rules, or by things. At the end of a voting phase players follow the auction procedure described in clause “a” to determine who owns the stock. Between a sale or possessing player inactivity the stock is considered unowned, that is to say no player possesses it. This overrides rule 302. This auction is not a separate phase, and coincides with the proposal phase of the next turn.

Where does this auction happen? Is it in the proposal thread for the turn just taken?


Yes, edited the rule to make this explicit.
It is better to have scs then allies, assuming something aproaching equal combat power in each

Your credibility with eliminated powers is irrelavant

Keep your allies happy enough that they stay allies

If you are receiving a message from me ignore this signature
pjkon
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 06 Feb 2012, 22:05
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 310 Stock Market

Postby pjkon » 22 Mar 2014, 22:27

Does anyone else have any other comments or should I proceed to voting stage?
It is better to have scs then allies, assuming something aproaching equal combat power in each

Your credibility with eliminated powers is irrelavant

Keep your allies happy enough that they stay allies

If you are receiving a message from me ignore this signature
pjkon
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 06 Feb 2012, 22:05
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 310 Stock Market

Postby Crunkus » 23 Mar 2014, 02:33

I'm again, not supporting Protected being a property that cannot be changed about the stocks.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 310 Stock Market

Postby connect4 » 23 Mar 2014, 02:41

FYI voting has started. Ugluk loses 10 points for the lack of betting line.
User avatar
connect4
 
Posts: 3610
Joined: 15 Nov 2008, 23:56
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Class: Diplomat
Standard rating: (1042)
All-game rating: (1012)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 310 Stock Market

Postby pjkon » 23 Mar 2014, 14:07

Crunkus wrote:I'm again, not supporting Protected being a property that cannot be changed about the stocks.


There is no property of stocks that cannot be changed. It is in fact impossible to make a part of a rule unchangeable.
It is better to have scs then allies, assuming something aproaching equal combat power in each

Your credibility with eliminated powers is irrelavant

Keep your allies happy enough that they stay allies

If you are receiving a message from me ignore this signature
pjkon
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 06 Feb 2012, 22:05
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 310 Stock Market

Postby Crunkus » 23 Mar 2014, 16:02

pjkon wrote:
Crunkus wrote:I'm again, not supporting Protected being a property that cannot be changed about the stocks.


There is no property of stocks that cannot be changed. It is in fact impossible to make a part of a rule unchangeable.


I'm talking about narfability, particularly with the suitcase.
(sigh)
Crunkus
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 310 Stock Market

Postby pjkon » 23 Mar 2014, 17:32

You can bard the fact that one of the things currently known as stocks counts as a stock, then rewrite its properties however you want, including eliminating protection. Have I made some sort of mistake with this?
It is better to have scs then allies, assuming something aproaching equal combat power in each

Your credibility with eliminated powers is irrelavant

Keep your allies happy enough that they stay allies

If you are receiving a message from me ignore this signature
pjkon
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 06 Feb 2012, 22:05
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: Proposal 310 Stock Market

Postby super_dipsy » 23 Mar 2014, 17:52

Must remember to vote...must remember to vote....

I like the stock market concept. I am worried about the briefcase though, i think it introduces a lot of confusion with paralell proposal changes. And although i can't find it now, i thought i found a rule 213 possibility in it. So

AYE

NAY
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12068
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 931
Timezone: GMT

Re: Proposal 310 Stock Market

Postby super_dipsy » 23 Mar 2014, 17:57

At least my NAY vote is wrong. I was on a mobile device but I think it game me the wrong colour. Let me try again.

AYE

NAY
User avatar
super_dipsy
Premium Member
 
Posts: 12068
Joined: 04 Nov 2009, 17:43
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 931
Timezone: GMT

Re: Proposal 310 Stock Market

Postby pjkon » 24 Mar 2014, 00:55

super_dipsy wrote:At least my NAY vote is wrong. I was on a mobile device but I think it game me the wrong colour. Let me try again.

AYE



I FIND YOUR LACK OF FAITH DISTURBING, super-dipsy.

And thank you for the AYE vote. Both for the sith ability use and on the proposal. I did not find any rule 213 endings in the briefcase, other then those that stemmed from briefcase rule changes which is a danger with normal rule proposals as well. there was one issue which attitudes pointed out which was that a problem could arise if the bookie's book was destroyed, but I fixed that one. If you find out what the 213 ending you found was I would be very interested.

NAY
My vote won't be the deciding vote any I need the negative midi-chlorians. I suppose this is one of the problems with being a sith. Of course I will change my vote if it does end up being the deciding one, but this is unlikely.
It is better to have scs then allies, assuming something aproaching equal combat power in each

Your credibility with eliminated powers is irrelavant

Keep your allies happy enough that they stay allies

If you are receiving a message from me ignore this signature
pjkon
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 06 Feb 2012, 22:05
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Nomic 5 (finished)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest