> > I think this would mean a talisman stops existing when its zombie > > ceases to be a zombie, since it ceases to be defined by the rules. If > > we're worried about that we could add "The talisman of a zombie is > > destroyed when that zombie ceases to be a zombie.". > > I think you're right about the talisman ceasing to exist, but I'm not > sure that "unique" is clearly specified enough - what happens when, > through some bug, a rule states that a new one is created when one > already exists? In fact, my proto doesn't even make this clear enough - > it doesn't specify _which_ talisman is destroyed.
My hope was to avoid any reference at all in the rules to talismans being created or destroyed, so that issue wouldn't come up. If I enacted a rule defining an office, I wouldn't include a clause in my proposal saying "the office is hereby created" --- I would just enact the rule defining it. The office exists when it's defined by the rules, and it doesn't really matter what happens to it when it's not. Adding explicit text about creating and destroying offices might open the door to questions like "could there be two offices of the Registrar?" that don't really come up in the absence of that kind of text. It's possible that someone could argue that when a talisman stops being defined, and then is defined again (i.e a player goes inactive -> active -> active) the taliman comes back into existence with the same owner as before. I tried to make an argument like that when we were talking about suspending Spaaace! and Politics. I guess it would be good to say explicitly that when a player becomes inactive, eir talisman is owned by Agora. I'm not insisting that it happen this way; just wanted to explain what I was thinking. - Falsifian
