That "can't revoke a negative number of assets" is CFJ-worthy: D. Margaux
interpreted it otherwise. (I'm not going to give an argument either way,
personally - it's exactly what I wanted to find out about).
On 2/2/2019 3:04 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
I would also add a clause allowing
... or negative amounts of Energy lmao
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 13:44, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> For some reason some of Agora is falling into my Spam on gmail.
>
> If you’re going to limit Energy use to a max of X because of the profit in
> savings both combatants would get, it’s more profitable to
For some reason some of Agora is falling into my Spam on gmail.
If you’re going to limit Energy use to a max of X because of the profit in
savings both combatants would get, it’s more profitable to limit it to a
max of X-1. And X-2, etc. I don’t know where some kind of equilibrium would
be
I would also add a clause allowing parties to leave the contract if not
currently engaging in a Space Battle, but in principle I think it works too,
although I don't entirely see the point - an Energy value higher than the
Spaceship's Energy balance is explicitly reduced to the Spaceship's
I think this works. Punishment for violation could be to permit the aggrieved
player to act on behalf of the violator to transfer to the aggrieved player a
number of coins sufficient (but not more than necessary) to enable the
aggrieved player to put emself in the same position with respect to
Proto-contract: Unlasting Damage
(does this work? thoughts, edits?)
When a combatant is a member of this contract, when they initiate a space
battle with another member, they can specify that the combat uses Anti-
Entropy. Members of this contract agree that, for any space battle in
which
6 matches
Mail list logo
