Re: DIS: Fixing fee-based actions (was winning - more direct or less direct?)

2020-06-18 Thread James Cook via agora-discussion
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 02:54, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/18/20 10:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I don't have a strong preference but just directly winning does seem 
> > simpler.
> >
> > Either way I think R2579 should be clarified so it's clear that a
> > fee-based win method doesn't make all other win methods also require
> > that fee.
> >
> > I haven't reviewed this carefully, but here's a quick proto amendment to 
> > R2579:
>
>
> I already submitted (w/o pending) a proposal at [0], but it could use
> another set of eyes.
>
> [0]:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043448.html

Sorry, yeah, just saw it. Catching up slowly...

- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Fixing fee-based actions (was winning - more direct or less direct?)

2020-06-18 Thread Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
On 6/18/20 10:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> I don't have a strong preference but just directly winning does seem simpler.
>
> Either way I think R2579 should be clarified so it's clear that a
> fee-based win method doesn't make all other win methods also require
> that fee.
>
> I haven't reviewed this carefully, but here's a quick proto amendment to 
> R2579:


I already submitted (w/o pending) a proposal at [0], but it could use
another set of eyes.

[0]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043448.html

-- 
Jason Cobb



DIS: Fixing fee-based actions (was winning - more direct or less direct?)

2020-06-18 Thread James Cook via agora-discussion
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 17:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> Minor discussion topic here.
>
> Right now, as evidenced by recent CFJ, the rules are in a slightly weird
> place in winning where sometimes you do a thing (Raise a Banner) that
> causes you to win, and sometimes what you do is "win by announcement" if
> certain conditions are met.  These can break in different ways so the
> inconsistency may be frustrating.  So, if we were to try to regularize
> this somehow, we could go "more direct" or "less direct".
>
> More direct:  Winning is always an action, and everything is re-written as
> something like:  "A Player CAN win by (some type of announcement, perhaps
> involving fees or other expenditures on the player's part, if conditions
> are met)."  Implication here is that if someone tries to win, and
> conditions aren't met, nothing happens (e.g. if you paid a fee to win, but
> you have some blots, the fee isn't paid and you keep your money).
>
> Less direct:  Something like ribbons:  A player who performs certain
> actions "earns" the right to award emself a win (say for 7 days), but e
> can't actually do so if another rule says e can't win.  So e can earn the
> win condition (say by a fee), expunge eir blots, and then actually award
> emself the win if e does it within the time limit.  However, if e times
> out before e expunges eir blots, e doesn't get a win and eir fee is lost.
>
> We've had both ways in the past (either seems workable).  No preference
> myself except that the current ambiguous middle-ground could use a push in
> one direction or the other?
>
> -G.

I don't have a strong preference but just directly winning does seem simpler.

Either way I think R2579 should be clarified so it's clear that a
fee-based win method doesn't make all other win methods also require
that fee.

I haven't reviewed this carefully, but here's a quick proto amendment to R2579:

--

Replace the first sentence with

If the Rules define payment of a set of assets (hereafter the fee
for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) as a method for performing
an action, that method is a fee-based method.

Replace "To perform a fee-based action" with "To use a fee-based method".

Replace "If the Rules define a fee-based action" with "If the Rules
define a fee-based method".

- Falsifian