On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
> I read this last night, slept on it, skimmed it again, and read the replies.
> Here’s my initial thoughts, thin as they are - I had more, but Gaelan and
> ais523 have already covered most of my inquiries.
>
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
>> existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
>> proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o.
>
> No problem! I’m glad you found it useful.
>
>> # 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror
>
> One thing I missed in my original Organization Repeal proposal was something
> you (Aris) did in the Assets proposal. Quoting that proposal:
>
> On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For the avoidance of doubt, all shinies existing under the old system
>> continue
>> to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new
>> shinies
>> are created to replace them.
>
> Some similar mechanism to make it clear that the Secretary becomes the
> Treasuror, rather than that the Secretary’s office ceases to be defined by
> the rules and a new office comes to be defined, would be nice. It’s not
> strictly necessary but it might influence when elections for the office can
> be called.
I'm thinking about this. The responsibilities are so different that I
feel like the break might better match reality, and it would be a bit
of a pain to word, as I can't just arbitrarily recreate destroyed
offices.
>
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:
>>
>> {{{
>> An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
>> }}}
>
> Did you intend to allow persons who are not players to own Estates?
>
>> Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:
>>
>> {{{
>> Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
>> indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
>> of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.
>>
>> The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or
>> contract by announcement if doing so is specified by a
>> rule.
>> }}}
>
> Did you intend to allow persons who are not players to own Shinies?
>
>> Repeal Rule 2485 ("You can't take it with you”).
>
> Given that this rule is completely broken - its text never applies to any
> situation which can be reached by gameplay - I’m tempted to repeal it in a
> freestanding proposal just to get it gone. Objections?
None from me.
>> Make <someone> Notary. [Any volunteers? Maybe our current Secretary or
>> Superintendent?]
>
> I’m happy to take the office. This is an interesting-enough idea that I’d
> hate to see it wither for lack of recordkeeping.
Thank you!
>> # 3.0 Asset Changes
>>
>> Amend Rule 2166, "Assets", by changing it to read in full:
>>
>> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule, authorized regulation,
>> group of rules/regulations, or contract (hereafter its backing
>> document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>> existence.
>>
>> Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise
>> lack an owner, it is owned by Agora. 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 if it is owned by Agora, in which
>> case
>> any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection). The restrictions
>> in
>> the previous sentence are subject to modification by its backing document.
>>
>> Unless modified by an asset's backing document, ownership of an asset is
>> restricted to Agora, players, and contracts.
>
> Flipping my previous two questions about ownership around, did you intend to
> forbid non-player persons from ever owning assets?
Yes, I do. No one has used it, as all current assets can only be owned
by players, and ontracts can always override the restriction anyway.
I'm adding this though, as it seems sensible: "As an exception to the
last
sentence, non-player persons are generally able to own assets defined by
a contract they are a party to, subject to modification by the contract in
question."
