Okay, I'm not sure wether I'm supposed to ask this or find it myself, but when did this objects system exist? Or how did it work? Sounds like it might be a good idea. Possibly. Okay, I'm not really sure how it is, but it sounds decent. Another question is why we got rid of it. Was it just no longer in use, or was it causing some sort of problem?
-Aris On Monday, September 12, 2016, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Nicholas Evans wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > On Jul 31, 2016, at 9:19 PM, nichdel <nich...@gmail.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > Here's a (periodically updated) draft of the econ proposal I'm > working > > > on: > > > > > > http://hearthgate.net/agorawiki/Econ-Proto > > > > As of this writing, the proposal for Economics reads, in part: > > > > I've now updated and fixed a lot of the issues, I think. Here's the > comparison: > > I have to say, I'm not persuaded that overloading the switch mechanism for > holdings/possessions is really the way to go. In the past, we've had a > generic "objects" mechanism ("assets" was one name) where the rules could > define discreet objects that had a natural, general default mechanisms for > creation, destruction, and transfer. I feel like re-introducing a general > mechanism like this would work better than switches. > > >
