On 6/11/20 2:58 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > I’m unsure how much power we have in “defining an entity” for the purposes > of contract-defined Assets, but eh life is short, I’ll give it a shot. > Also, this doesn’t violate DADA, rather, it aims to exploit it seeing how > G. was punished for Dark Arts recently. It maybe even has support from AIAN > but I have no idea. Anyways baby, let’s go. > > > (About the Bazinga: it didn't exist as gamestate before this contract > existed, right? With that specific name and all, which is a lot different > from just the set alone, namelessly. So it exists by virtue of the > contract. That's important for R2166.) > > I create the following contract called “Humble Agoran Moral Tripwire”: > > ---- > > The set consisting of Cuddlebeam’s Master Switch and Agora’s Ruleset is > defined to be the Bazinga entity. And, of course, there is only one > Bazinga. > > The Bazinga is a destructible asset that can only be owned by Cuddlebeam > and is owned by Cuddlebeam. > > The Bazinga is destroyed whenever any event described in the Big Evil List > happens.
If you're arguing that the Bazinga is a new entity and that it somehow "is" a set, then go ahead and destroy it. Destroying a set of entities does not necessarily imply destroying each of its elements. -- Jason Cobb
