On 11/22/23 18:55, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Enact a new rule titled "Stamp Specialization":
>>
>
> I think stamp specialty should be secured at power 2, since it affects
> voting strength, but I don't see that listed here. i
> Also... Stamp specialization switch would need to be tracked on persons,
> not players, as players are registered.
> Also... if a person is deregistered for 3 months... then they get set to
> ANY, then they reregister with super powers.
Securing makes sense. True about the super powers, I'll make the next
draft flip it on registration.
>
>
>> Enact a new rule titled "Victory Tokens":
>>
> Since this gets rid of radiance, this is fine. However, may want to specify
> the office that tracks Victory Tokens (presumably the collector?). I think
> this would be fine to leave at power=1.
Yup good catch on the office.
> I think there should be an ability to pay N Selfsame Stamps to change a
> player's specialty if they have already chosen one.
I'll think on this one, but if don't include it and this passes you can
always add it later.
>
>
>> Repeal R2675 ("Dream of Wandering").
>>
>> Repeal R2656 ("Radiance").
>>
>> Amend R2640, "Stones" by replacing:
>>
>> A stone is a unique indestructible liquid asset
>>
>> with:
>>
>> A stone is a unique fixed indestructible liquid asset
>>
>> and deleting:
>>
>> (ii) The smoothness of the stone, which is a non-negative integer;
>>
>> Amend R2641, "Wielding Stones" by replacing:
>>
>> While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it or to transfer
>> it by announcement
>>
>> with:
>>
>> While a stone is hot, it is IMPOSSIBLE to wield it
>>
>> Amend R2642, "Gathering Stones", to read in full:
>>
>> Grab Cost is an integer stone switch with default value 10, tracked
>> by the Stonemason. At the beginning of each week, the Grab Cost of
>> each Stone is decreased by 1, unless it is already 0.
>>
>> A player CAN "grab" a specified, non-immune stone by paying a fee of
>> X Stone Stamps, where X is the Stone's current Grab Cost. When e
>> does so, the specified stone is transferred to em and its Grab Cost
>> is set to 10.
>>
> Because 2642 is a different rule than 2640, 2640 is using the definition of
> fixed from 2577. I think this means that stones are non-transferrable,
> since it would not be defined in its backing document (2640), and 2577 has
> higher power than 2642? I think this also applies to weilding stones,
> however, I'm not certain because would R2645 be the backing document, and
> thus, defined methods of transfer?
I think what you're saying is that you think transferring by grabbing
doesn't work, because R2642 cannot override the definition in R2640
(because only the backing document can). I'm actually not sure. I can
move things around if necessary, but I'll ask for some clarification first.
--
nix
