On Mon, 4 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> Be action Z) the following: Performing A), B) then C) twice (so
> A-B-C-A-B-C) then creating a Stamp by transferring 10 Shinies to Agora
>
>
> This step, however, is ineffective, whether performed once or one hundred
> times:
>
> Once per month, a player MAY, by announcement, transfer to Agora the
> Stamp Value, in shinies, to create a Stamp.
>
>
> The Stamp Value was not ten at the time.
First, I just noticed that "spend" is defined for AP as decreasing
AP, but I can't find where it says that "spending" shinies is
the same as paying Agora to do something? Where does it say that
a "spent" shiny is transferred to Agora?
Further, Rule 2500 explicitly prohibits spending AP into a
negative AP balance, but is there anything the prohibits spending
shinies below 0?
I feel like I'm missing something very obvious in the above, but
I'm not finding it.
Now, longer discussion (on paying for things in general):
If you say "I pay X to do Y", and you have X, but it doesn't cost X
to do Y, or Y CANNOT be done by paying X, it's not clear if you pay
X anyway.
For example, if I say "I pay 3 shinies to o to make o happy", and you
say "you failed to make me happy", does that mean I paid you, or not?
Does it fail just because I couldn't do it with payment?
The Assets rule says:
An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner to
another entity by announcement,
I'm not sure why adding a purpose for the transfer would invalidate
the transfer attempt. At least, there's nothing in the rule to state
that adding a purpose (fee payment) makes it a conditional transfer.
You *could* read "I pay X to do Y" as a conditional, as in "I pay X, and
if it doesn't make Y happen, I don't pay X". But that's not official in
the rules.
And if you over-pay for something you can do by payment, does part or all
of it get transferred and do you do Y or not? Since you could write
conditionals for any of these options, it's not clear what conditional
would apply by default.
Precedent doesn't help (I think?), because we've actually done it *both*
ways (the transfer goes through, or the transfer doesn't) with different
versions of fees. Sometimes it was explicit, sometimes not. And I'm
not saying your assumption is wrong or unreasonable - just that we haven't
decided how it works yet for the current assets rule?
(Again, unless I missed something in the current rules that directly
covers this...?)
