On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 at 09:27 ATMunn <[email protected]> wrote: > I like the idea, the assets rule is very complicated and weird right now. > Comments below. >
> > Change the power of Rule 2166 (Assets) to 2, then amend it to read as > > follows: > > An asset is an entity that is a member of a class defined as such > > by the rules or by contract (hereafter its backing document). > This still could be interpreted as contracts being the only things that > could be a backing document. I think the rest of the rule implies that both > rules and contracts can be backing documents, though. > I still think it's a pretty ridiculous argument... > > > Should a rule specify a quantity of assets > Incomplete sentence. > Oops. > > }}} > > > > Enact a new power-2 rule entitled "The Lost and Found Department", > > reading as follows: > I really like this idea. > It's not original; when I started, the LFD was a thing; it seems good to use this instead of Agora because Agora holds assets (e.g. shinies) for other purposes. > When an entity is required to spend or pay an asset, including as a > > prerequisite for another action, e does so by destroying it or, if > > a recipient is specified in the requirement or permission, > > transferring it to that recipient. Each instance of spending or > > paying an asset is distinct; a player cannot satisfy multiple > > requirements to spend an asset simultaneously. When spending an > > asset, the player must clearly specify the purpose for which the > > asset is being spent; if it is ambiguous, then the payment is > > INEFFECTIVE. > Does this fix the "paying something off in multiple payments" issue? (and > should it, or should that be handled by individual rules?) > That's the intent, but I'd appreciate nitpicking of the wording. -Alexis
