On 6/16/20 6:59 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 6/16/20 6:45 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> Alright, final chance for comments. I plan to pend this in about a day.
>>
>> I submit (but do not pend) the following proposal:
>>
>> Title: Talismans
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Coauthors: nch, Falsifian, G.
>>
>> {
>>
>> For the purposes of this proposal, a player's prior master is eir master
>> before this proposal applies any effects.
>>
>> Amend Rule 2532 to read, in whole:
>> {
>>
>> A talisman is an indestructible asset, tracked by the Registrar, and
>> with ownership wholly restricted to players and Agora. There exists
>> exactly one talisman for each player, and no other talismans; if one
>> does not exist for a certain player, it is created in eir posession.
>> Talismans CAN only be transferred as explicitly specified by the rules.
>> The creation, destruction, and transfer of talismans is secured.
> Secured at what power?
Rule 1688: the power of the rule itself.
>> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player CAN, by announcement,
>> transfer the talisman for em to emself.
> Could we make this "acting as emself"? Without that, people could
> transfer eir zombies back to themselves in order to reset resale value.
There's a goal here (as requested by G.) not to make any changes that
impact gameplay. I don't want to re-litigate anything about zombies.
You've found something interesting, but I won't fix it here.
>
>> The master of a player is the
>> entity that possesses the talisman for em. A player who is eir own
>> master is active; any other player is a zombie (syn. inactive).
>>
>> The master of a zombie CAN act on behalf of em, except a master CANNOT
>> act on behalf of a zombie to:
>> - initiate, support, object to, or perform a dependent action;
>> - act on behalf of that zombie's zombies;
>> - bid in a zombie auction;
>> - enter a contract, pledge, or other type of agreement;
>> - initiate a Call for Judgement;
>> - create blots;
>> - deregister.
>>
>> If a master causes a zombie to perform an ILLEGAL action, the master
>> commits the Class 4+N Crime of Masterminding (where N is the class of
>> the illegal action).
> Let's add N=2 when the class isn't specified, just to be extra safe.
This is consistent with the existing wording, and I'm inclined not to
change it, seeing as it very probably works.
>
>> If an active player who was a zombie has not received a Welcome Package
>> since e most recently ceased being a zombie, and if eir resale value was
>> less than 2 at any point during eir most recent time as a zombie, then
>> any player CAN cause em to receive a Welcome Package by announcement.
>>
>> }
>>
>> Amend Rule 2574 to read, in whole:
>> {
>>
>> Any player CAN, with notice, transfer the talisman for an active player
>> who has not made a public announcement in the past 60 days to Agora.
>>
>> Resale value is a secured natural switch for zombies, tracked by the
>> Registrar, with a default value of 2. Whenever the talisman for a zombie
>> is transferred to a player, that zombie's resale value is decreased by
> Should we specify "a player other than emself"?
Once it's transferred to emself, e ceases to be a zombie and thus has
loses eir resale value switch, so it's pointless to specify.
>> Amend Rule 2575 by replacing the final sentence with
>> "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the talisman for the Distributor
>> is possessed by emself (and is transferred to em if it ever is not), and
>> e CANNOT deregister or be deregistered."
>>
>> For each player who is not eir own prior master, transfer the talisman
>> for em to eir prior master.
> This should probably specify "master prior to this proposal".
"Prior master" is defined at the top of the proposal.
>> }
>>
> Could we let zombies be transferred from person to person?
Theoretically, yes. Again, however, I'm trying not to make any semantic
changes to zombies. This has been discussed before, and I might end up
writing a proposal for it, but it won't be done here.
--
Jason Cobb
