On Sunday, May 24, 2020 10:42:40 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 5/24/20 11:17 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Friday, May 22, 2020 4:21:34 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > >> A talisman is an asset with ownership restricted to players and Agora. > >> If there ever does not exist a talisman for a certain zombie, one is > >> created in the possession of Agora. If there ever exists more than one > >> talisman for a certain zombie, or more than zero talismans for any other > >> person, one talisman for that player is destroyed. Talismans are tracked > >> by the Registrar. > > > > In the case of >1 talisman you don't specify which one is destroyed, which > > is problematic if they're owned by different entities. That said, how > > would there ever be more than one talisman for one zombie? > > You're right, and I'm thinking of just having the rule say "screw it, > destroy all of them". This clause exists just to control the effects of > any bugs - it's not something that should normally happen, but it is > plausible enough that I think there should be wording for it. >
This might be over engineered. The worst case of two talismans existing is that two people can control the zombie until it gets resolved via proposal. Which if anything is just funny. If you still want to include protection I think "if there would be two talismans for the same zombie, the most recently created one is destroyed" covers all instances unambiguously. > >> Any player CAN, with notice: > >> - If a zombie has been a zombie for the past 90 days and not had > >> Agora for a master during any of that time, destroy one talisman for > >> that zombie; > >> - If a player possess more than one talisman, destroy one of those > >> talismans; > > > > Would "I destroy one of the talisman Jason possesses" satisfy this? Maybe > > "specify and destroy one of those talismans" > > I'll do that, although, if this is an actual issue, it's the same as in > the current wording. > Oh you're right. I think this is ambiguous enough that if that's how people have been interpreting it, it's fine. -- nch
