On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 08:53:55PM -0500, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion 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."
Is this really needed? It seems kind of complicated. If we want a stone that steals things, why not say it can steal from any entity? Taxes can take from contracts as easily as from people, and giving people exemptions could maybe even disincentivise putting things in contracts. I imagine there are examples where this would help but I'm not seeing them right now. -- Falsifian
