On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > To perform a fee-based action, a Player (the Actor) who is > otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e > is performing the action and announce that there is a fee for > that action.
But not announce what the fee is? > Upon said announcement, the action is performed, > the Actor's energy is decreased by the fee (in ergs). > > Any Player (hereafter the challenger) CAN announce that the > Actor possessed insufficient energy (ergs) to perform the > action, provided e issues eir challenge within 7 days of the > attempted action. "; e SHOULD do so within" > As soon as possible after such a challenge, the PSM SHALL > confirm or deny whether the Actor possessed ergs equal to or > greater than the fee at the time e attempted the action. If the > Actor in fact possessed insufficient energy or the energy of the > Actor cannot be determined by reasonable effort "of the Actor at that time" > the action > shall be deemed to have not occurred and the energy of the Actor > shall be deemed to have not been changed by the fee. > > If a Player issues a challenge as above, but more than 7 days > have passed since the attempted action, then the action shall be > permitted to stand. As soon as possible after a late challenge > is issued, the PSM SHALL confirm or deny its correctness. In > this case the action is considered to have destroyed all ergs > in the Player's possession at the time. This sounds very scammable. Why not just forbid such challenges? > Create the following Rule, Fee-based actions, power-2: > > - A player CAN increase eir voting limit on a specified > decision to adopt a proposal in its voting period by 2Q, by > paying a fee of Q, provided this does not increase eir > voting limit above any maximum limit defined elsewhere. As coppro noted, the "provided" part is scammable. > - A player CAN veto or rubberstamp an ongoing ordinary decision for > a fee of 4 ergs. Maybe decrease the price on this. > Amend Rule 2255 (Major Arcana) to read: > > Each of the items listed in this rule by a title and position is > an asset, each one an individual asset tracked by the Herald. Redundant wording. > Collectively these assets are known as Cards. > > Cards CANNOT be destroyed except as described in this Rule, nor > CAN more than a single instance of each particular card come > into existence, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. > If a CFJ determines that the possessor of the instance can't be > determined by reasonable effort, then that Herald SHALL CAN e? Also, you may want to remove "Major Arcana" from 2275 and 2273. -- -c.
