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 part
... 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 lim
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 reached
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 Energ
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 a
5 matches
Mail list logo