Entity is the base class. Agora is an entity, persons are entities, there are likely other entities.
Something makes an entity an asset (I've redfined it a few times and am unsatisfied with my definition of asset at a base level) Assets are what have powers - a player is an asset with all the switches and abilities provided by the rules. The rules are an asset contained by the ruleset etc. This crazy idea is a rewrite of the whole rules and likely is too extravagant - and I'm also uncertain what boons it brings vs complications On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 21:55 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:48 PM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:42 PM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Please define 'Lost and found department' - It seems to be a non-player > >> entity capable of holding assets without restriction, and it seem to be > >> impossible to fully restrict the lost and found department from holding > any > >> given asset? Seems like it should be possible for ownerless assets to > self > >> destruct instead of ending up in the lost and found where presumably > someone > >> could end up removing them if they became ownerless (It seems like if a > >> player stops being a player, the lost and found gets their stuff, and > then > >> anyone can take it no matter what that stuff is)? > > > > I just had an idea. I'm probably insane, but it's an idea. What if > > Agora could own assets? What if assets could own other assets? What if > > the Lost and Found Department was an asset owned by Agora? Probably > > ridiculous, but the possibilities... > > I will actually add a definition though. Probably something vague, > like "an entity", although maybe not quite that vague... As you can > probably tell, I'm rather tired, so this may have to wait. > > -Aris >
