On 5/24/20 11:17 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Friday, May 22, 2020 4:21:34 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> I've shamelessly stolen the name from Warrigal's dead contract.
>>
>>
>> Title: Talismans
>>
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>>
>> {
>>
>> 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:
>>
>> {
>>
>> Activity is a switch possessed by players, with possible values "active"
>> (default) and "inactive". Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a
>> player CAN, by announcement, flip eir activity to active. A player who
>> is inactive is a zombie.
> Need to specify who, if anyone, tracks this switch or it'll create a new
> office
> (R2603).
Dammit. Good catch.
>
>> A talisman is an asset with ownership restricted to players and Agora.
>> If there ever does not exist a talisman for a certain zombie, one is
>> created in the possession of Agora. If there ever exists more than one
>> talisman for a certain zombie, or more than zero talismans for any other
>> person, one talisman for that player is destroyed. Talismans are tracked
>> by the Registrar.
> In the case of >1 talisman you don't specify which one is destroyed, which is
> problematic if they're owned by different entities. That said, how would
> there
> ever be more than one talisman for one zombie?
You're right, and I'm thinking of just having the rule say "screw it,
destroy all of them". This clause exists just to control the effects of
any bugs - it's not something that should normally happen, but it is
plausible enough that I think there should be wording for it.
>
>> A person (the master) who possesses a talisman for a specific player
>> (the controlled player) CAN act on behalf of the controlled player to
>> perform any action, subject to the restrictions in this rule. A master
>> CANNOT cause a controlled player to do any of the following using any
>> method specified in this rule:
>>
>> - 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).
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> }
>>
>> [Note: destroying a zombie's talisman is equivalent to flipping a
>> zombie's master to Agora under the old system. This is longer than the
>> old rule because it needs language for both activity and ensuring only
>> one talisman exists for any given zombie (which were combined in the
>> previous rule).]
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2574 to read, in whole:
>>
>> {
>>
>> Any player CAN, with notice, flip the activity of an active player who
>> has not made a public announcement in the past 60 days to inactive.
>>
>> 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
>> 1. At the end of a zombie auction, every zombie that is an excess lot in
>> that auction has eir resale value decreased by 1.
> The whole inactive=zombie thing is a little unintuitive. If I didn't know
> R2532 well I might not realize how these two paragraphs relate. Maybe the
> switch should just be [Active, Zombie]?
Hm... it looks like the current ruleset doesn't actually use the term
"inactive" anywhere, so that would be feasible, but it feels nicer for
the switch to have values with clearly opposite meanings. I'm not sure
what I'll do here. Another option would be to make it a boolean switch
with True=Active and False=Inactive/Zombie.
>
>> The talisman of a zombie with zero resale value CANNOT be transferred.
>>
>> Any player CAN, with notice:
>>
>> - If a zombie has been a zombie for the past 90 days and not had
>> Agora for a master during any of that time, destroy one talisman for
>> that zombie;
>> - If a player possess more than one talisman, destroy one of those
>> talismans;
> Would "I destroy one of the talisman Jason possesses" satisfy this? Maybe
> "specify and destroy one of those talismans"
I'll do that, although, if this is an actual issue, it's the same as in
the current wording.
>
>> - Deregister a zombie whose resale value is zero and for which Agora
>> possesses a talisman.
>>
>> The Registrar SHALL track the date that a talisman for each zombie last
>> belonged to Agora in eir weekly report. The Registrar SHALL perform all
>> POSSIBLE actions in the preceding paragraph in a timely fashion after
>> first reporting their possibility via the facts in eir weekly report.
> Do you intend for the registrar to give notice for all of those actions in
> the
> report or do them? I'm not sure e can do them without notice the way this is
> worded.
Same here; this text is copied from the current wording with the minimal
adjustments to make it work with the rest of the draft.
>
>> }
>>
>>
>> [Zombie auction rules TBD; probably needs to be coordinated with any
>> auction reform.]
>>
>>
>> Amend Rule 2575 by replacing the final sentence with
>> "Rules to the contrary not withstanding, the Distributor's activity
>> cannot be flipped to inactive, and e CANNOT deregister or be deregistered."
>>
>>
>> For each player, if eir prior master is not emself, grant a talisman for
>> that player to that player's prior master.
>>
>> }
>>
>> --
>> Jason Cobb
>
--
Jason Cobb
