So overall, I'm a bit concerned with the separate uses of "pay" and "spend" given that they now function differently and spend includes destruction. For example, if someone says "I pay 1 AP to ...." then it would technically fail, because "pay" is defined as a transfer and AP can't be transferred. This is messy and confusing - we know what is meant, but this could lead to people calling this out and lots of errors, and inconsistencies (i.e. most times we let it go, but if someone has a game reason for invalidating someone else's action, they might call it out).
I think a solution is to include with this proposal going through the whole ruleset and harmonizing "pay" versus "spend" language in all the rules. I'm willing to take a pass at this but will probably be tomorrow. On Sat, 14 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> 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? > > > > No worries - if you have reasons for keeping it destroy/transfer other > > than as just an AP kludge, cool - I'll help you wordsmith the next draft. > > Below is an updated draft. > > -Aris > > --- > Title: Spending Fix v2 > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: G. > > Amend Rule 2166, "Assets", by inserting the paragraph > > "To spend an asset is to pay or destroy it for the purpose of doing some > other > action or fulfilling an obligation by announcement; if the action would not > be completed, the obligation would not be at least partially fulfilled, or > more of the asset would be spent than is needed to perform the > action/fulfill > the obligation, then the attempt to spend fails. Whether the asset must be > payed or destroyed is determined by what is needed to perform the action or > satisfy the obligation. If the entity defining or enabling the action or > creating the obligation does not specify which is necessary, but merely that > the asset must be spent, and if no other rule intervenes, then it is > transferred to Agora." > > after the paragraph beginning "An asset generally CAN be transferred..." > > Amend Rule 2500, "Action Points", by changing it to read in full: > > Action Points (AP) are a fixed destructible untracked currency. At the > beginning of each Agoran Week, all Action Points are destroyed and 2 Action > Points are created in the possession of each player. It is IMPOSSIBLE > for Action Points to be gained in any other way. Action Points are spent by > being destroyed. >
