On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 4:20 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I object to this one as well. I really don't like the idea of this >> going into the Vote Market contract, but why don't you create this as >> a sub-contract? > > A sub-contract won't be able to modify VP. While props could just > exist for the sake of existing, and whoever has the most props gets to > feel good, my aim is to encourage proper play and vice versa. A > number in a report does not do that. I would much prefer to hit > improper players in the wallet... hence the VP.
Even if it's just part of the Vote Market, it has no bearing on the Vote Market non-parties, and all it does for me is make me want to leave that contract again. If you want to make it a rule, that's fine, but there's no reason it should be a fundamental component of the Vote Market contract itself. As for the "can't modify VP" objection -- a sub-contract couldn't modify VP directly, but it could require its parties to transfer them. If the sub-contract is a partnership and a member of the Vote Market, it can require them to transfer VP to itself, and it can transfer VP back to its parties when they acquire enough props. -root
