Good point! I do think that argument holds water, actually. Fortunately, my 
patch works whether or not the rule actually defines incense as an asset.

-twg

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On August 26, 2018 1:22 AM, D Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> I Call for Judgement (barring twg) on the following statement: “D. Margaux 
> currently has in eir possession 5 incense.”
>
> Argument in favor:  R2499 does state quite clearly that, as part of the 
> Welcome Package, “Agora creates ... the ... /assets/” of “5 incense” in the 
> welcomed Player’s possession. So I believe that Rule does establish that 
> incense is an asset (a pointless one, admittedly), and awards it as part of a 
> Welcome Package, as its text straightforwardly says. Certainly, it is absurd 
> to create an asset that has no useful purpose and that is referenced nowhere 
> else in the Rules, but, under R217, such an absurdity affords no reason to 
> ignore the text of R2499.
>
> (Am I doing this right? :-) )
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 6:34 PM Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:
>
>> I submit and pend the following proposal:
>>
>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> Title: Yet Another Economics Patch
>> Adoption index: 1.0
>> Author: twg
>>
>> Amend rule 2499, "Welcome Packages", by removing the list item
>> "5 incense" and renumbering the other list items appropriately.
>>
>> Destroy all incense.
>>
>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>
>> I don't _think_ this has a mechanical effect, because incense isn't
>> explicitly defined anywhere any more (so it's not technically an
>> asset, so D. Margaux can't have been erroneously given any), but
>> there's no point keeping it around in the ruleset to confuse people.
>>
>> -twg

Reply via email to