On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/23/2017 11:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current
>> Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would
>> have significant disadvantages in several respects. I think I'd have
>> trouble convincing people to implement another system once we have one
>> up and running, despite the possible advantages.
>
> Any specific concerns? You've thought about this more, so I'm probably being
> naive.
They're not very specific. I just feel like the version I'm working
from (which was mostly borrowed from a past version in the ruleset)
has considered some possibilities more, such as contract based assets.
Whenever someone tries to suggest a "minimal" implementation, I get
concerned it will be underspecified. That's no comment on your
proposal writing ability, just on the difficulty of making something
like this work. Look, for instance, at all the trouble we had with
rule re-enactment.
>>
>> I do agree about the
>> lost and found department though. If someone writes new text for "you
>> can't take it with you" that fits with assets, I'd be more than happy
>> to include it (with appropriate credit of course).
>
> I'd be willing to pick it up if no one else, but right now I'm prioritizing
> working on a win condition and a few smaller adjustments.
>>
>> Here's my current draft of Assets v4:
>
> Glad to see you're still working on this, kudos!
>
> Here's some comments (and some proof-reading, assuming the formating works
> out).
>>
>> {{Title: Assets v4
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Aris
>> Co-authors: o, nichdel
>>
>> Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:
>>
>> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>> document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>> existence.
>>
>> Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise
>> lack an owner, it is owned by *~the~* Agora. If
>> an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
>> of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred
>> to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
>> by an entity outside that class (except for Agora,
>> in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it
>> without objection).
>
> Backing documents should be able to over-ride this CAN, right? Agora owns
> estates by default, and it seems undesirable to allow people to conspire to
> transfer or destroy them.
They probably should, but keep in mind this is without objection. You
can already do this by ratification without objection or a proposal,
this just makes it simpler.
>>
>> Unless modified by an *assets* backing document, ownership of an asset
>> is
>> restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations. An organization's
>> charter
>> CAN specify whether or not that organization is willing *^to^* receive
>> assets or a
>>
>> class of assets. Generally, an organization CANNOT be given assets its
>> charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
>>
>> The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
>> defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That
>> entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
>> and their owners. This portion of that entity's report is
>> self-ratifying.
>>
>> An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
>> announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.
>> To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's
>> possession; to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it
>> from that entity's possession.
>>
>> An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed) by its owner to
>> another
>> entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
>> document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
>> document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
>>
>> A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
>> document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are
>> fungible.
>>
>> The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x
>> that
>> entity possesses. If a rule or proposal attempts to increase or
>> decrease the
>> balance of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then
>> the
>> currency is created or destroyed. Where it resolves ambiguity
>> "Balance",
>> without any currency modifiers, refers to an entity's balance of
>> whichever
>> currency is designated as "Agora's official currency", if there is one.
>>
>> Assets are always public. [To provide for private contract based assets
>> later]
>>
>> Change the rule "Economics" to read in full:
>>
>> Shinies (sg. shiny) are a liquid currency, and the official currency of
>> Agora.
>> They may be owned by Agora, any player, or any organization. The
>> Secretary is
>> the recordkeepor for Shinies.
>>
>> The Secretary CAN cause Agora to pay any player or organization by
>> announcement if doing so is specified by a rule.
>>
>> Shinies cannot be destroyed, except as allowed by rules specifically
>> addressing the destruction of Shinies. Any attempt to destroy Shinies
>> instead
>> transfers them to Agora.
>
> I think this paragraph might allow anyone to 'attempt to destroy someone
> else's shinies', and therefore transfer them to Agora.
Good catch. I'll fix that.
>> Amend Rule 2459, Organizations, by adding as a paragraph at the end:
>>
>> A member of an Organization can perform any action the rules authorize
>> that
>> Organization to perform, if the Organization's charter states that
>> doing so
>> is Appropriate.
>>
>> For the avoidance of doubt, all shinies existing under the old system
>> continue
>> to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new
>> shinies
>> are created to replace them.
>>
>>
>> Amend the rule "The Surveyor" to have the folowing text:
>>
>> The Surveyor is an office, and the recordkeepor of estates.
>>
>> Amend the rule "Estates" to have the following text:
>>
>> An Estate is a type of liquid asset, which can be owned by players,
>> orginizations, and Agora. The following changes are secured:
>> creating, modifying, or destroying an Estate; and causing an
>> entity to become an Estate or cease to be an Estate.
>>
>> Estates cannot be destroyed, except as allowed by rules specifically
>> addressing the destruction of Estates. Any attempt to destroy an
>> Estate instead
>> transfers it to Agora.
>
> Same as above.
>
>> Amend the rule "Estate Auctions" by changing the paragraph beginning
>> "During
>> an auction..." to read "During an auction, any player or organization may
>> bid
>> any number of Shinies by announcement." and removing the break between
>> that
>> and the next paragraph.
>>
>> For the avoidance of doubt, all Estates existing under the old system
>> continue
>> to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new
>> Estates
>> are created to replace them.}}
>>
>> -Aris
>>
-Aris
