Notes inline, followed by some general thoughts > On Jan 26, 2021, at 5:54 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is intended to prevent lockers from being excluded from > rules-defined theft (which I plan to propose stones for soon(tm)). The > intended purpose of this is to allow stones to mess with assets without > incentivizing lockers (which would ruin Trigon's life). > > Key design goals: > > 1. Each contract has an Executor, which is usually a player or Agora. > > 2. Executors can be flipped to/from Agora in a similar manner to > charities, which means that the people are saying it's not just a locker > to avoid assets being taken away. > > 3. Executors can be null both as a stopgap and a default. Contracts with > null executor cannot receive assets and risk losing their assets if they > don't put _someone_ in charge of them. > > 4. Once an executor has been set to a party, it can't be set back to null. > > 5. When rules take assets from a person due to theft/whatever, it takes > from first the person itself, then the contracts for which e is the > executor, then the contracts for which the executor is null (which, > after a month and a half, should be ~0). > > > So, for example, if a stone had an effect of transferring a pendant to > the wielder, it would say "For a specified player, eir first > jointly-accessible pendant is transferred to the wielder." > > > { > > Executor is a contract switch with possible values of every party that > is a player, Agora, and null, defaulting to null, tracked by the Notary. > Assets CANNOT be transferred to a contract with null executor. > > A party to the contract CAN by announcement flip its executor to a > party, when explicitly permitted by the text of the contract, or with
This is redundant, since the contract can say that the parties consent to the change. > the consent of all parties. The executor of a contract CAN be flipped to > Agora with 2 Agoran consent. The executor of a contract whose executor > is Agora CAN be flipped to null with Agoran consent. > > If this rule has existed for at least 30 days, and a contract has had a > null executor for the past 14 days, a player CAN, with 7 days notice and > 2 support, destroy all assets held by that contract. I think this is fine, but we should convince ourselves this doesn’t allow some sort of scam where you keep assets in a null contract for a brief period, or take them out every 7 days, or anything like that > The jointly-accessible assets of a player are the following; assets > listed earlier are said to be jointly-accessible "earlier" or "first": > 1. The assets e owns; > 2. The assets in each contract for which e is the executor, with earlier > joint-accessibility for more recently created contracts; > 3. The assets in each contract with a null executor that e is party to, > with earlier joint-accessibility for more recently created contracts. > > } > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason We’ve wanted to implement stealing/taxing mechanics several times, so this is an important thing to fix. I think this is a good start. I would vote FOR it in its present form. I’m not a huge fan of the “exempt contracts from this by announcement” system; I’d prefer something that did something reasonable (or could be made to do something reasonable by the contract) in all cases. To do that, we’d probably need some way for contracts to indicate which player they were holding assets in escrow for. That’s certainly a lot more complex than this, and I’m not entirely sure it’s worth the trouble. So yeah, I’m fine with this for now. Gaelan
