---
Title: pledge(2)
Author: Trigon
Coauthors:
AI: 3
[ COMMENT: The gist of this idea is that players can choose for some
part of their messages which actions should succeed and which actions
should fail. Hopefully, this would be integrated gracefully into the
rest of the rules, but that's a lot of SHALLs to sort through to
decide which should be scoped actions. Comments can be found
throughout. ]
Enact a new Power=3 rule entitled "Scopes" with text:
Players CAN take actions in a specific scope. When a player does
so, e must either clearly and unambiguously describe a list of
allowed actions or a list of prohibited actions for that scope, or
e must refer to a source which clearly and unambiguously defines
such a list. E must also clearly and unambiguously specify when e
begins acting in that scope and when e finishes acting in that
scope.
Actions within a scope which are prohibited or not allowed are
blocked actions, while actions which are allowed or not prohibited
are unblocked actions.
[ COMMENT: I'm not sure what I think of this terminology. ]
When a player is acting within a specific scope, if an action
which would otherwise succeed is blocked within that scope, then
that action instead fails.
If, when taking actions within a scope, the performing player
allows indirection, actions whose end results are solely to
initiate one or more unblocked actions within that scope succeed
as well.
If, when taking actions within a scope, the performing player
prohibits partial successes, if one action within the scope
would fail, then all actions within the scope fail.
If, when taking actions within a scope, the performing player
allows acting on behalf, then acting on behalf to perform an
unblocked action within that scope succeeds as well.
[ COMMENT: There's got to be a way to phrase these scope modifiers
better, right? ]
The following scopes are defined:
[ COMMENT: These are just random suggestions , though I think they are
useful. Feel free to suggest more. ]
* Global scope: all actions are allowed in this scope.
[ COMMENT: This should also allow players to say something like "I act
in the global scope, disallowing partial success, to do the following:
{...}" instead of "If all the following succeed I do this: {...}".
I think that it's elegant, if a bit wordy. Suggestions for better
terminology for scopes are welcome. ]
* Transaction scope: when acting in this scope, only transfers of
assets are allowed.
* Economic scope: when acting in this scope, creation,
destruction, and transfers of assets are allowed.
* Official scope: for a specified office, only actions mandated by
the rules for that office succeed.
[ COMMENT: This is a rather broad specification, but it might allow us
to write something like "When the rules say an Officer CAN do
something, then e does so in that Office's scope", though whether we
want to is another question. ]
[ COMMENT: So what do you think? I like the idea, but executing actions
within a scope is wordy. As is the proposed rule. With no comments,
it's still over 40 lines long. Suggestions to make either more
succinct are very welcome. ]
--
Trigon
¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST
<https://agoranomic.org/AgoraQuest>
<https://agoranomic.org/AgoraQuest>
<https://agoranomic.org/AgoraQuest>
I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
