Some diagnostic questions, to help me figure out how I want to structure the proposed rules for Estates:
Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text: Is there a meaningful distinction between re-enacting a rule and creating a rule? > Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise > lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. If > an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class > of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred > to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned > by an entity outside that class (except for the Lost and Found > Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it > without objection). The class “owner” isn’t constrained. I’d love to see some limits, to prevent cyclic ownership structures and to prevent scenarios such as “this asset is owned by a person who is not a player, who cannot do anything with it without first becoming a player." How do you foresee a restriction on the class of owners for a given asset appearing in the backing document? Model wording would be very helpful, at least for me. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
