I like the idea, the assets rule is very complicated and weird right now.
Comments below.
On 11/16/2017 10:39 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
Rule 2166 is enormous, unwieldy, and hard to follow. This intent of this
proposal is to make it easier to understand and remove text that isn't
used. It's easy enough to re-enact relevant text later if needed, but r
Only a proto for now, because it requires coordination with a number of
proposals in flight (this alone is a sign that the rule is broken as is).
{{{
Change the power of Rule 2166 (Assets) to 2, then amend it to read as
follows:
An asset is an entity that is a member of a class defined as such
by the rules or by contract (hereafter its backing document).
This still could be interpreted as contracts being the only things that could
be a backing document. I think the rest of the rule implies that both rules and
contracts can be backing documents, though.
An
asset exists only as created in accordance with the its backing
document. In the case of an asset class backed by a contract, that
contract can, subject to the rules, define the properties as well
as restrict or permit the creation, transferral, and destruction
of assets in that class. An asset class is private if its backing
document is a contract; it is public otherwise.
Each asset has exactly one owner. The backing document for an
asset can set out the entities to which ownership is restricted;
by default, ownership of an asset is restricted to players,
contracts, and Agora. Other entities CANNOT own that asset.
Additionally, a contract CANNOT own an asset unless its text
says, implicitly or explicitly, that it is willing to receive that
asset or class of assets.
The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity, if any,
defined as such, and bound by, its backing document. That entity's
report (weekly, if not modified by the backing document) report
if you remove the parentheses, this says "report report"
includes a list of all instances of assets of that class and their
owners. This portion of the entity's report is self-ratifying.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a non-party to a contract
NEED NOT perform any recordkeeping duties assigned to em by that
contract.
Subject to an asset's backing document:
- The owner of an asset CAN, by announcement, destroy it.
- The owner of an asset CAN, by announcement, transfer it to
another entity, provided that entity can own the asset in
question.
Should a rule specify a quantity of assets
Incomplete sentence.
}}}
Enact a new power-2 rule entitled "The Lost and Found Department",
reading as follows:
{{{
The Lost and Found Department is an entity. Rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, the Lost and Found Department can always own any
asset. If an asset would ever be owned by an entity which cannot
own that asset, or if it lacks or would lack an owner, then that
asset becomes owned by the Lost and Found Department.
Assets owned by the Lost and Found Department can, the backing
document notwithstanding, be transferred or destroyed without
objection.
}}}
I really like this idea.
Enact a new power-2 rule entitled "Asset Terminology", reading as
follows:
{{{
When used by an asset's backing document in the definition of an
asset's properties, the following terms are defined (subject to
further modification by the backing document):
- A fixed asset is one that CANNOT be transferred.
- A liquid asset is one that CAN be transferred.
- An indestructible asset is one that CANNOT be destroyed.
- A destructible asset is one that CAN be destroyed.
- A currency is a class of assets such that instances of that
asset with the same owner are fungible.
The "X balance of Y", where X is a currency and Y is an entity, is
the number of X owned by Y. To increase or decrease the X balance
of some entity is to create or destroy the apropriate number of X
in that entity's possession.
typo: apropriate should be appropriate
When an entity is required to spend or pay an asset, including as a
prerequisite for another action, e does so by destroying it or, if
a recipient is specified in the requirement or permission,
transferring it to that recipient. Each instance of spending or
paying an asset is distinct; a player cannot satisfy multiple
requirements to spend an asset simultaneously. When spending an
asset, the player must clearly specify the purpose for which the
asset is being spent; if it is ambiguous, then the payment is
INEFFECTIVE.
Does this fix the "paying something off in multiple payments" issue? (and
should it, or should that be handled by individual rules?)
}}}
Amend Rule 2483 (Economics) by deleting ", and the official currency of
Agora" and by appending "unless another recipient is specified, spending
shinies is done by transferring them to Agora".
