On Tue, 05 May 2015 09:16:06 +0100 Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 12:54 +0200, Luis Ressel wrote: > > or to a switch > > that pertains to an Organization or a pair including that > > Organization > > I probably wrote this bit originally, but this sort of wording has > been implicated in at least two very high-profile scams (one in which > Contracts could define themselves as players because that was a switch > that applied to Contracts, and one in which the rules defining the > Province of Agora pertained to it). I think we need to find a > different way to quantify the switches we actually care about. > Yes, I remember the Province of Agora issue, it was my fault after all. But I don't think the overly broad range of "pertains" is a problem here; the rule only defines the term "(in)appropriate" so that it can be used later in the same rule. Even if one interprets the rule to the effect that other modifications are considered (in)appropriate, that doesn't have any consequences. > [..] > > If an Organization's Income is ever lower than 50, that > > Organization Collapses, destroying the Organization. > I think we might want some exception for if this happens as a > temporary state inside one message? You should be able to > redistribute a Budget without worrying about the order in which you > make the changes. The normal way would be to pragmatize it (i.e. make > Collapsing an Organization an action anyone can do by announcement, > rather than automatic), but that's almost inevitably going to lead to > scams where people create many empty Organizations in quick > succession, before anyone can react. > How about putting a rate limit on the creation of Organizations? > > c) The Herald is authorized to award that player the Patent > > Title of Welsher. > Probably you shouldn't be able to get a Ribbon this way. > Actually, I was thinking about doing this. :) -- aranea
