On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Tanner Swett wrote:
> Well, gee, ais523's promises seem to be being pretty effective.
>
> I submit 7 promises: "I transfer a Machiavelli trading card to the
> cashier." Conditions for cashing: (a) in the same message, the cashier
> gives me a trading card I did not already own a copy of; (b) the
> cashier has not already cashed another copy of this promise in the
> same message; and (c) if the cashier is omd, e has not already cashed
> another copy of this promise at any time in the past. I can destroy
> these promises unconditionally.
>
> I'm starting to wonder if we should add something to the rules to make
> trading a bit simpler.
I've ran a few contests that did a Trade mechanic; not for a while tho.
Not too different than promises, depending on whether trade offers last
long enough or complicated enough to be worth tracking as separate
entities (i.e. promises).
It was basically:
A Player (the Seller) CAN announce a Trade Offer, which is a listed
set of assets e will accept in exchange for a set of assets that e
possesses. Another player (the Buyer) CAN announce that e accepts the
Trade. If the trade is accepted, and both players possess, immediately
before the acceptance, the respective assets offered for exchange,
then the assets are transferred between them simultaneously. A Trade
Offer expires (is Null and Void) 4 days after it is made, or if the
Seller publicly revokes the offer.
If a player makes or accepts a trade offer while e does not possess
the assets e offers, e commits the Class-2 Crime of False Advertising.
(In the contest, it could be private offers if the Contestmaster was
cc'd; could do the same thing if the tracking officers were cc'd).
Note: The limited time, and the strict asset for asset, are in the name
of simplified tracking. By the time you add other Conditions, or have them
last indefinitely, or (especially) conditions and offers not involving strict
transfer for transfer, it becomes as complicated as promises, so might as
well stick with promises.
Still, the above strict "simultaneous asset for asset, offer expiring
quickly" is simple enough to add to general asset transfer definitions.
