On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 11:50 AM ATMunn via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/11/2020 9:31 PM, nch wrote: > > On 6/11/20 8:20 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > >>>> Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: > >>>> Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which > >>>> can be > >>>> owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: > >>>> type, > >>>> effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the > >>>> amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. > >>>> > >>>> Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active > >>>> players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, > >>>> equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's > >>>> wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A > >>>> player > >>>> CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the > >>>> amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one > >>>> amulet at > >>>> a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be > >>>> transferred. > >>> Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a > >>> new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the > >>> Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a > >>> good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off. > >>> > >>> There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you > >>> define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier > >>> in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same > >>> time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact > >>> if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player > >>> CANNOT*put on* more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it > >>> to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another > >>> amulet." Though that sounds awkward. > >>> > >>> What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping, > >>> using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns, > >>> but they still get a lot of power that way. > >> Maybe just make it so a player can only own one amulet at a time? That > >> would get rid of the whole "wearing" thing too. > >> > > That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly > > encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one > > then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for > > someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed > > to enable. > > > > Oh yeah, didn't think about that. The next draft will definitely allow > contracts to own them.
Letting contracts own them will preclude the use of an ownership restriction.
