On 5/16/20 10:27 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Proto: Sets side-game > > [nch didn't name an officer for Sets I'm going to use "Dealor" here]. > > Enact the following Rule, "Setting the Table": > > Chits are a currency tracked by the Dealor, ownable by Players. > > The Jack's Hand, the Queen's Hand, and the King's Hand are each > Dealor-tracked switches, with possible values being any specified set > of 8+ rules-defined card types (repeats allowed), and the default of > "no payout".
*puts on pedantry hat* Isn't this an unordered list, rather than a set? *removes pedantry hat* > > The Jack's Purse, Queen's Purse, and King's Purse, are each Dealor- > tracked natural switches with a default of 0 and a maximum of 10. > > To Clear the Table is to flip all the switches defined in this rule > to their default values, and to destroy all instances of assets > defined in this rule. The table is then cleared until the Dealor > Posts the Odds. If the table has not been cleared in the past 90 > days, or since the last contested Dealor election, then the Dealor > CAN clear the table with notice. I'm unsure how appropriate the 90 day period is, but to figure out one way or the other I'd have to be doing some math with the expected auctions that I don't have time to right now. > > Whenever the table is cleared, the Dealor SHALL in a timely > fashion, and CAN with notice, post the odds. For an announcement of > intent to post the odds to be clearly specified, it must contain: Can a low-power rule override the term "clearly specified" like this? All in all, I think this would be a good addition if we end up passing sets. > [ > Just realized if we wanted to keep things economic-like, we could reskin > cards as "futures" and their assets as "commodities" or something. > ] I think "futures" does sound better than cards. -- Jason Cobb
