On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:37, Pavitra<celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: > It feels like it's duplicating much of the logic of NoVs. And I don't > like the separation between creating and closing audits. > > Maybe this would be a good time to add With N (Days) Notice to R1728(a). > A person CAN, under certain secured circumstances, audit an entity With > 4 Days Notice.
I was using NoVs as a 'template' of sorts for audits. However, your "with notice" idea may be a cleaner method. My intent was that an audited player would have 3 days to get their hand back to the correct size or face penalty (rests if they are active and chose to ignore the audit, or destruction if they are inactive and unable to respond). However, to give the audited player some control they can close the audit themselves at the time of their choosing before those 3 days elapse. "with notice" wouldn't allow this, and thus the player initiating the audit would have control over when to perform the audit action and could (at the last minute) transfer a bunch of cards to the audited player to inflate their penalty. Hmm...maybe it would work if it read "A person CAN (with restrictions) audit an entity with 4 days notice unless the entity has been audited during that time. An entity CAN audit emself by announcement." > > > Also, why "rule-defined"? Isn't protection of namespace/scope/whatever > it's called implicit? > G. brought this up when I protoed an earlier version of this. A contract could define its own cards and then deal large quantities of them to players causing them to exceed their hand limit. BobTHJ
