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