>but is there anything the prohibits spending >shinies below 0? Yes, it's like the 1st sentence of assets. You can't go below 0 shinies.
Anyway ordinary meaning of spend enforces common sense here. On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 4 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> Be action Z) the following: Performing A), B) then C) twice (so >> A-B-C-A-B-C) then creating a Stamp by transferring 10 Shinies to Agora >> >> >> This step, however, is ineffective, whether performed once or one hundred >> times: >> >> Once per month, a player MAY, by announcement, transfer to Agora the >> Stamp Value, in shinies, to create a Stamp. >> >> >> The Stamp Value was not ten at the time. > > First, I just noticed that "spend" is defined for AP as decreasing > AP, but I can't find where it says that "spending" shinies is > the same as paying Agora to do something? Where does it say that > a "spent" shiny is transferred to Agora? > > Further, Rule 2500 explicitly prohibits spending AP into a > negative AP balance, but is there anything the prohibits spending > shinies below 0? > > I feel like I'm missing something very obvious in the above, but > I'm not finding it. > > > Now, longer discussion (on paying for things in general): > > If you say "I pay X to do Y", and you have X, but it doesn't cost X > to do Y, or Y CANNOT be done by paying X, it's not clear if you pay > X anyway. > > For example, if I say "I pay 3 shinies to o to make o happy", and you > say "you failed to make me happy", does that mean I paid you, or not? > Does it fail just because I couldn't do it with payment? > > The Assets rule says: > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner > to > another entity by announcement, > I'm not sure why adding a purpose for the transfer would invalidate > the transfer attempt. At least, there's nothing in the rule to state > that adding a purpose (fee payment) makes it a conditional transfer. > > You *could* read "I pay X to do Y" as a conditional, as in "I pay X, and > if it doesn't make Y happen, I don't pay X". But that's not official in > the rules. > > And if you over-pay for something you can do by payment, does part or all > of it get transferred and do you do Y or not? Since you could write > conditionals for any of these options, it's not clear what conditional > would apply by default. > > Precedent doesn't help (I think?), because we've actually done it *both* > ways (the transfer goes through, or the transfer doesn't) with different > versions of fees. Sometimes it was explicit, sometimes not. And I'm > not saying your assumption is wrong or unreasonable - just that we haven't > decided how it works yet for the current assets rule? > > (Again, unless I missed something in the current rules that directly > covers this...?) > > -- >From V.J Rada
