On 1/28/21 10:50 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
> 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.
>
Here's the proposal I was planning to submit before it was pointed out
that lockers break it:
Title: Playing the stone card
Author: Jason
Coauthors: nix
Adoption index: 2.0
{
Amend Rule 2645 by appending the following:
{
- Middleman Stone (weekly, 60%): For a specified card type and player
who owns at least 3 of that card, 3 of that type of card are revoked
from that player; the wielder gains 2 of the associated product; the
specified player gains 5 of the associated product.
- Quill Stone (weekly, 40%): A pendant is transferred from the sole
person (if any) who submitted the most proposals in the previous Agoran
week to the wielder; an attempt to wield this stone fails if that person
is not correctly specified.
- Justice Stone (weekly, 70%): A blot is created in the possession of a
specified person.
}
}
The first two are broken by lockers. For the first, even if we let it
take assets from contracts directly, it could be circumvented with
multiple lockers that each hold less than 3 stones. I wrote the second
one because nix suggested making stones with indirect targets to require
timing or shenanigans if you want to target a specific person. Lockers
would break the quill stone because there's no sane way to specify it to
take from contracts without breaking the fact that it's indirectly targeted.
We can disagree about whether these specific stones are a good idea, but
lockers break anything that does anything remotely similar to the
middleman or quill stones, and I think that's bad.
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
