On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > Two points: > > - Make it a full mechanism, e.g. "to spend something, you announce what you're > trying to purchase and indicate that it has a cost [option, do you have to > specify > the exact cost or not]." Then we can get rid a lot of the "spend by > announcement" > clauses because 'by announcement' will be captured in the 'spend' definition, > and > the definition says what facts you have to supply in the announcement.
Done. Thank you. > - I think it's a bit confusing and unneeded to allow the "transfer or destroy" > to both be "spend". How about defining "spend" as transfer only and then > wording AP like this: > > "At the beginning of each week, all AP are destroyed, and 2 are created in the > possession of each player". This means all spends can be transfers, and the > AP that go to Agora are destroyed each week. [also, don't know if it's > by bug or feature, but your version unused AP accumulate from week to week]. > (Oh, also add that 2 AP are created in a player's possession when e > registers). > > This would make the definition itself much much simpler, though the AP rule > would be a little longer. I considered that. There is a significant advantage to this though, in that 1. people are likely to try to spend things that have to be destroyed and 2. this means that rules will almost have the intended effect. However, I agree that my current implementation is messy, and worse, overly magical. I want to keep the destroy or transfer bit, but I think its reasonable to expect rule/contract authors to be a little more careful. I'm going to remove the "if its indestructible" bit, and have it just always default to transferring. Are you okay with that? -Aris
