We all have to determine current shiny balances (more recent than the last report) every once and a while. Making that more painful than necessary gets a thumbs down from me.
Gaelan > On Sep 4, 2017, at 9:10 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > > On Sep 4, 2017, at 5:28 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu > <mailto:ke...@u.washington.edu>> wrote: > >> Random grab, an old version: >> >> Rule 1941/3 (Power=1) >> Fees >> >> If the Rules associate a non-negative cost, price, charge, or >> fee with an action, that action is a fee-based action. If the >> specified cost is not an integer, the actual fee is the next >> highest integer. >> >> 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. Upon said announcement, the action is performed, >> the Actor's kudos are decreased by the fee. >> >> [Need to add a 0 trap for over-spending, the old one had 0-trap >> mechanics that wouldn't work anymore] > > Given that all of the zero-trap mechanics are already covered through the > definitions of assets and the existing “pay” action, I’m not clear on what > benefit a more sophisticated definition of “spend” would have over making it > synonymous with “pay Agora”. It’s neat to see, though. > >> [Note, in this version, you never have to say what the fee is, you just >> say "I do X by paying a fee" and the recordkeepor figures out what you >> paid]. > > I actually don’t mind this, so long as the fee schedule is somewhere easily > published. Since I’m the recordkeepor for Shinies anyways and am about to be > responsible for publishing those facts, this gets a thumbs-up from me. > > -o
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
