On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 08:18, Charles Walker <charles.w.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 31 July 2011 23:54, Charles Reiss <woggl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Set the power of rule 2166 (Assets) to 3. >> >> [Rationale: promises are assets at Power 3, so the defining rule needs >> to be, too.] > > Why?
Many of the asset properties of promises don't fall naturally from the natural-language definition, and the asset rule defines many non-natural properties (such as sometimes-implicit transfers to the Lost and Found Department) of promises that substantially effect their operation. If any modification to the Asset rules would be effective at changing the properties of Promises, then clearly that gives a escalation scam at Power 2. If not, then the question is where that line is -- and it probably is ambiguous (perhaps even as to how much the generic asset rules apply now to promises), which is not so good for the stability of the rules. - woggle
