Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Could an organization charter or contract serve as a backing document?


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Josh T 
> wrote:
> >> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
> >> document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
> >> existence.
> > So no organization can define and issue assets, for example?
> No, although they're free to pretend they can for their own internal
> purposes. I'm waiting for contracts to come back in full. I'm actually
> planning to bring them back myself, after this and regulations, unless
> someone beats me too it. I have ideas on how to make them work with
> organizations and agencies.
> >
> >> If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class of
> >> entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an
> entity
> >> outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside
> >> that class (except for Agora, in which case any player CAN transfer or
> >> destroy it without objection).
> > How is this different from "An asset's backing document may forbid its
> > ownership from a class of entities, but it CANNOT forbid Agora from
> owning
> > that asset. Any action done which would result in an entity gaining an
> asset
> > which it is forbidden to own is IMPOSSIBLE. If an asset is owned by an
> > entity which is forbidden from owning that asset, the asset is
> destroyed. If
> > Agora owns an asset, any player CAN transfer or destroy it without
> > objection" (adopting this phrasing may require rewording some later
> parts so
> > that they still work, but for the purpose of this question, that is
> > irrelevant).
> >
> > PS: I think the default should be that an asset is transferable only via
> a
> > mechanism specified in the backing document. I probably would support a
> rule
> > which gives the record-keeper of assets to destroy abandoned Agora-owned
> > assets without objection.
> I think assets should be transferable by default. That will come up
> more often, and the backing document can override it anyway.
> >> An organization's charter CAN specify whether or not that organization
> is
> >> willing receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, an organization
> >> CANNOT be given assets its charter states that it is unwilling to
> receive.
> > This seems ambiguous. A charter which says nothing about assets neither
> > specifies if it is willing or unwilling to receive them, so would not
> fall
> > under either sentence.
> > Say if a hypothetical organization says something like "At the beginning
> of
> > each Agoran month, this organization distributes as many of its Shinies
> > evenly to each member, with the organization holding the remainder," but
> > doesn't explicitly say that it can receive Shinies, where does it stand?
> Good catch. I'll probably add something about whether the charter
> appears to anticipate being given shinies, unless that sounds to
> vague.
> > Does this change if the backing document is a rule with higher power than
> > the one for organizations?
> It shouldn't, unless that rule is more powerful than this one and
> overrides it. I may may make this rule have a power of 3.0, just in
> case.
> >
> >> [The] entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and
> >> their owners.
> > Do you perhaps mean all extant or existent instances of that class, or we
> > can't have a theoretically unbounded asset class? (Example: "A floorb is
> an
> > asset with a name switch which is valid with any string. Any player who
> has
> > never previously made a floorb may create a new floorb and set its name
> > switch" might be impossible to record.)
> The rules can require anyone to do anything. This doesn't raise any
> new concerns that I can see.
> >> A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT
> >> be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
> > Is this for ease of access in terms of terminology?
> That and standardization.
> >> Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance", without any currency modifiers,
> >> [...]
> > I think you need a comma "ambiguity".
> Fixed.
> >
> > I finally managed to have time to look at this proposal. Seems good so
> far;
> > I would like to hear your thoughts about my remarks / concerns.
> >
> > 天火狐
> Thanks, and I appreciate the help.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Josh T  wrote:
>> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>> document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>> existence.
> So no organization can define and issue assets, for example?
No, although they're free to pretend they can for their own internal
purposes. I'm waiting for contracts to come back in full. I'm actually
planning to bring them back myself, after this and regulations, unless
someone beats me too it. I have ideas on how to make them work with
organizations and agencies.
>
>> If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class of
>> entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity
>> outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside
>> that class (except for Agora, in which case any player CAN transfer or
>> destroy it without objection).
> How is this different from "An asset's backing document may forbid its
> ownership from a class of entities, but it CANNOT forbid Agora from owning
> that asset. Any action done which would result in an entity gaining an asset
> which it is forbidden to own is IMPOSSIBLE. If an asset is owned by an
> entity which is forbidden from owning that asset, the asset is destroyed. If
> Agora owns an asset, any player CAN transfer or destroy it without
> objection" (adopting this phrasing may require rewording some later parts so
> that they still work, but for the purpose of this question, that is
> irrelevant).
>
> PS: I think the default should be that an asset is transferable only via a
> mechanism specified in the backing document. I probably would support a rule
> which gives the record-keeper of assets to destroy abandoned Agora-owned
> assets without objection.
I think assets should be transferable by default. That will come up
more often, and the backing document can override it anyway.
>> An organization's charter CAN specify whether or not that organization is
>> willing receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, an organization
>> CANNOT be given assets its charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
> This seems ambiguous. A charter which says nothing about assets neither
> specifies if it is willing or unwilling to receive them, so would not fall
> under either sentence.
> Say if a hypothetical organization says something like "At the beginning of
> each Agoran month, this organization distributes as many of its Shinies
> evenly to each member, with the organization holding the remainder," but
> doesn't explicitly say that it can receive Shinies, where does it stand?
Good catch. I'll probably add something about whether the charter
appears to anticipate being given shinies, unless that sounds to
vague.
> Does this change if the backing document is a rule with higher power than
> the one for organizations?
It shouldn't, unless that rule is more powerful than this one and
overrides it. I may may make this rule have a power of 3.0, just in
case.
>
>> [The] entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and
>> their owners.
> Do you perhaps mean all extant or existent instances of that class, or we
> can't have a theoretically unbounded asset class? (Example: "A floorb is an
> asset with a name switch which is valid with any string. Any player who has
> never previously made a floorb may create a new floorb and set its name
> switch" might be impossible to record.)
The rules can require anyone to do anything. This doesn't raise any
new concerns that I can see.
>> A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT
>> be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
> Is this for ease of access in terms of terminology?
That and standardization.
>> Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance", without any currency modifiers,
>> [...]
> I think you need a comma "ambiguity".
Fixed.
>
> I finally managed to have time to look at this proposal. Seems good so far;
> I would like to hear your thoughts about my remarks / concerns.
>
> 天火狐
Thanks, and I appreciate the help.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Aris Merchant]

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> On 05/23/2017 11:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current
>> Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would
>> have significant disadvantages in several respects. I think I'd have
>> trouble convincing people to implement another system once we have one
>> up and running, despite the possible advantages.
>
> Any specific concerns? You've thought about this more, so I'm probably being
> naive.
They're not very specific. I just feel like the version I'm working
from (which was mostly borrowed from a past version in the ruleset)
has considered some possibilities more, such as contract based assets.
Whenever someone tries to suggest a "minimal" implementation, I get
concerned it will be underspecified. That's no comment on your
proposal writing ability, just on the difficulty of making something
like this work. Look, for instance, at all the trouble we had with
rule re-enactment.
>>
>> I do agree about the
>> lost and found department though. If someone writes new text for "you
>> can't take it with you" that fits with assets, I'd be more than happy
>> to include it (with appropriate credit of course).
>
> I'd be willing to pick it up if no one else, but right now I'm prioritizing
> working on a win condition and a few smaller adjustments.
>>
>> Here's my current draft of Assets v4:
>
> Glad to see you're still working on this, kudos!
>
> Here's some comments (and some proof-reading, assuming the formating works
> out).
>>
>> {{Title: Assets v4
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Aris
>> Co-authors: o, nichdel
>>
>> Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:
>>
>>An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>>document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>>existence.
>>
>>Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
>>lack an owner, it is owned by *~the~* Agora. If
>>an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
>>of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred
>>to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
>>by an entity outside that class (except for Agora,
>>in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it
>>without objection).
>
> Backing documents should be able to over-ride this CAN, right? Agora owns
> estates by default, and it seems undesirable to allow people to conspire to
> transfer or destroy them.
They probably should, but keep in mind this is without objection. You
can already do this by ratification without objection or a proposal,
this just makes it simpler.
>>
>>Unless modified by an *assets* backing document, ownership of an asset
>> is
>>restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations. An organization's
>> charter
>>CAN specify whether or not that organization is willing *^to^* receive
>> assets or a
>>
>>class of assets. Generally, an organization CANNOT be given assets its
>>charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
>>
>>The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
>>defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  That
>>entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
>>and their owners.  This portion of that entity's report is
>>self-ratifying.
>>
>>An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
>>announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.
>>To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's
>>possession; to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it
>>from that entity's possession.
>>
>>An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed) by its owner to
>> another
>>entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
>>document.  A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
>>document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
>>
>>A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
>>document.  Instances of a currency with the same owner are
>>fungible.
>>
>>The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x
>> that
>>entity possesses. If a rule or proposal attempts to increase or
>> decrease the
>>balance of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then
>> the
>>currency is created or destroyed. Where it resolves ambiguity
>> "Balance",
>>without any currency modifiers, refers to an entity's balance of
>> whichever
>>currency is designated as "Agora's official currency", if there is one.
>>
>>Assets are always public. [To provide for private contract based assets
>> later]
>>
>> Change the rule "Economics" to read in full:
>>
>>Shinies (sg. shiny) are a liquid currency, and the official currency of
>> Agora.
>>They may be owned by Agora, any player, or any organization. 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Josh T]

> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing 
> document),
and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence.
So no organization can define and issue assets, for example?

> If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class of
entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity
outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside
that class (except for Agora, in which case any player CAN transfer or
destroy it without objection).
How is this different from "An asset's backing document may forbid its
ownership from a class of entities, but it CANNOT forbid Agora from owning
that asset. Any action done which would result in an entity gaining an
asset which it is forbidden to own is IMPOSSIBLE. If an asset is owned by
an entity which is forbidden from owning that asset, the asset is
destroyed. If Agora owns an asset, any player CAN transfer or destroy it
without objection" (adopting this phrasing may require rewording some later
parts so that they still work, but for the purpose of this question, that
is irrelevant).

PS: I think the default should be that an asset is transferable only via a
mechanism specified in the backing document. I probably would support a
rule which gives the record-keeper of assets to destroy abandoned
Agora-owned assets without objection.

> An organization's charter CAN specify whether or not that organization is
willing receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, an organization
CANNOT be given assets its charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
This seems ambiguous. A charter which says nothing about assets neither
specifies if it is willing or unwilling to receive them, so would not fall
under either sentence.

Say if a hypothetical organization says something like "At the beginning of
each Agoran month, this organization distributes as many of its Shinies
evenly to each member, with the organization holding the remainder," but
doesn't explicitly say that it can receive Shinies, where does it stand?

Does this change if the backing document is a rule with higher power than
the one for organizations?

> [The] entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and
their owners.
Do you perhaps mean all extant or existent instances of that class, or we
can't have a theoretically unbounded asset class? (Example: "A floorb is an
asset with a name switch which is valid with any string. Any player who has
never previously made a floorb may create a new floorb and set its name
switch" might be impossible to record.)

> A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT
be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
Is this for ease of access in terms of terminology?

> Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance", without any currency modifiers,
[...]
I think you need a comma "ambiguity".

I finally managed to have time to look at this proposal. Seems good so far;
I would like to hear your thoughts about my remarks / concerns.

天火狐

On 24 May 2017 at 00:01, Aris Merchant 
wrote:

> I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current
> Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would
> have significant disadvantages in several respects. I think I'd have
> trouble convincing people to implement another system once we have one
> up and running, despite the possible advantages. I do agree about the
> lost and found department though. If someone writes new text for "you
> can't take it with you" that fits with assets, I'd be more than happy
> to include it (with appropriate credit of course).
>
> Here's my current draft of Assets v4:
>
> {{Title: Assets v4
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: o, nichdel
>
> Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:
>
>   An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>   document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>   existence.
>
>   Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
>   lack an owner, it is owned by the Agora.  If
>   an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
>   of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred
>   to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
>   by an entity outside that class (except for Agora,
>   in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it
>   without objection).
>
>   Unless modified by an assets backing document, ownership of an asset is
>   restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations. An organization's
> charter
>   CAN specify whether or not that organization is willing receive assets
> or a
>   class of assets. Generally, an organization CANNOT be given assets its
>   charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
>
>   The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
>   defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Nic Evans]

On 05/23/2017 11:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current
Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would
have significant disadvantages in several respects. I think I'd have
trouble convincing people to implement another system once we have one
up and running, despite the possible advantages.
Any specific concerns? You've thought about this more, so I'm probably 
being naive.

I do agree about the
lost and found department though. If someone writes new text for "you
can't take it with you" that fits with assets, I'd be more than happy
to include it (with appropriate credit of course).
I'd be willing to pick it up if no one else, but right now I'm 
prioritizing working on a win condition and a few smaller adjustments.

Here's my current draft of Assets v4:

Glad to see you're still working on this, kudos!

Here's some comments (and some proof-reading, assuming the formating 
works out).

{{Title: Assets v4
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: o, nichdel

Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:

   An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
   document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
   existence.

   Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
   lack an owner, it is owned by *~the~* Agora. If
   an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
   of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred
   to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
   by an entity outside that class (except for Agora,
   in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it
   without objection).
Backing documents should be able to over-ride this CAN, right? Agora 
owns estates by default, and it seems undesirable to allow people to 
conspire to transfer or destroy them.

   Unless modified by an *assets* backing document, ownership of an asset is
   restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations. An organization's charter
   CAN specify whether or not that organization is willing *^to^* receive 
assets or a
   class of assets. Generally, an organization CANNOT be given assets its
   charter states that it is unwilling to receive.

   The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
   defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  That
   entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
   and their owners.  This portion of that entity's report is
   self-ratifying.

   An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
   announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.
   To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's
   possession; to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it
   from that entity's possession.

   An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed) by its owner to another
   entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
   document.  A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
   document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.

   A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
   document.  Instances of a currency with the same owner are
   fungible.

   The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x that
   entity possesses. If a rule or proposal attempts to increase or decrease the
   balance of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
   currency is created or destroyed. Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance",
   without any currency modifiers, refers to an entity's balance of whichever
   currency is designated as "Agora's official currency", if there is one.

   Assets are always public. [To provide for private contract based assets 
later]

Change the rule "Economics" to read in full:

   Shinies (sg. shiny) are a liquid currency, and the official currency of 
Agora.
   They may be owned by Agora, any player, or any organization. The Secretary is
   the recordkeepor for Shinies.

   The Secretary CAN cause Agora to pay any player or organization by
   announcement if doing so is specified by a rule.

   Shinies cannot be destroyed, except as allowed by rules specifically
   addressing the destruction of Shinies. Any attempt to destroy Shinies instead
   transfers them to Agora.
I think this paragraph might allow anyone to 'attempt to destroy someone 
else's shinies', and therefore transfer them to Agora.

Amend Rule 2459, Organizations, by adding as a paragraph at the end:

   A member of an Organization can perform any action the rules authorize that
   Organization to perform, if the Organization's charter states that doing so
   is Appropriate.

For the avoidance of doubt, all shinies existing under the old system continue
to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new shinies
are created to replace them.


Amend the rule "The Surveyor" to have the folowing text:

   The Surveyor 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Aris Merchant]

I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current
Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would
have significant disadvantages in several respects. I think I'd have
trouble convincing people to implement another system once we have one
up and running, despite the possible advantages. I do agree about the
lost and found department though. If someone writes new text for "you
can't take it with you" that fits with assets, I'd be more than happy
to include it (with appropriate credit of course).

Here's my current draft of Assets v4:

{{Title: Assets v4
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: o, nichdel

Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:

  An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
  document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
  existence.

  Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
  lack an owner, it is owned by the Agora.  If
  an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
  of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred
  to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
  by an entity outside that class (except for Agora,
  in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it
  without objection).

  Unless modified by an assets backing document, ownership of an asset is
  restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations. An organization's charter
  CAN specify whether or not that organization is willing receive assets or a
  class of assets. Generally, an organization CANNOT be given assets its
  charter states that it is unwilling to receive.

  The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
  defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  That
  entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
  and their owners.  This portion of that entity's report is
  self-ratifying.

  An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
  announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.
  To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's
  possession; to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it
  from that entity's possession.

  An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed) by its owner to another
  entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
  document.  A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
  document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.

  A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
  document.  Instances of a currency with the same owner are
  fungible.

  The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x that
  entity possesses. If a rule or proposal attempts to increase or decrease the
  balance of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
  currency is created or destroyed. Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance",
  without any currency modifiers, refers to an entity's balance of whichever
  currency is designated as "Agora's official currency", if there is one.

  Assets are always public. [To provide for private contract based assets later]

Change the rule "Economics" to read in full:

  Shinies (sg. shiny) are a liquid currency, and the official currency of Agora.
  They may be owned by Agora, any player, or any organization. The Secretary is
  the recordkeepor for Shinies.

  The Secretary CAN cause Agora to pay any player or organization by
  announcement if doing so is specified by a rule.

  Shinies cannot be destroyed, except as allowed by rules specifically
  addressing the destruction of Shinies. Any attempt to destroy Shinies instead
  transfers them to Agora.

Amend Rule 2459, Organizations, by adding as a paragraph at the end:

  A member of an Organization can perform any action the rules authorize that
  Organization to perform, if the Organization's charter states that doing so
  is Appropriate.

For the avoidance of doubt, all shinies existing under the old system continue
to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new shinies
are created to replace them.


Amend the rule "The Surveyor" to have the folowing text:

  The Surveyor is an office, and the recordkeepor of estates.

Amend the rule "Estates" to have the following text:

  An Estate is a type of liquid asset, which can be owned by players,
  orginizations, and Agora. The following changes are secured:
  creating, modifying, or destroying an Estate; and causing an
  entity to become an Estate or cease to be an Estate.

  Estates cannot be destroyed, except as allowed by rules specifically
  addressing the destruction of Estates. Any attempt to destroy an
Estate instead
  transfers it to Agora.

Amend the rule "Estate Auctions" by changing the paragraph beginning "During
an auction..." to read "During an auction, any player or organization may bid
any number of Shinies by announcement." and removing the break between that
and the 

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Nic Evans]

Looking back at Assets v3 and forward to current events, I think we should:

-Define Assets very simply, distinguishing fungible and nonfungible

-Replace balance with a more generic asset switch (which applies to 
organizations, agora, and *persons*)


-Redefine trade and heirs to work for all assets. I did a quick take on 
this below [1].


-Make assets go to Agora or heirs as appropriate, skipping the concept 
of a Lost and Found (which I feel was the most problematic part of 
Assets v3)


[1] {

"Agora, *a person*, or an organization (Payer) can 'pay' X to Agora, a 
player, or an organization (Payee) as long as:


-X is a set of assets where every nonfungible asset is clearly 
identified and every fungible asset is listed as a non-negative amount.


-Payor currently has in eir Pockets* every nonfungible asset in X, and 
at least as much of each nonfungible asset as specified in X.


If any part of a payment is incorrect, none of the payment occurs. If a 
payment succeeds then:


-For every nonfungible asset listed, it is no longer in Payer's Pockets 
and is now in Payee's Pockets.


-For every fungible asset listed, Payer's Pockets contain Y (the 
specified amount) less, and Payee's Pockets contain Y more.


}


On 05/23/2017 07:01 PM, Quazie wrote:
Sorry to not get on this until now.  I'd be down with a rule that 
defined a word "Assets" perhaps, and note that Shinies and Estates are 
both considered Assets.  Then the amendments would be easier to make 
in the future, we would just have to edit the concept of 'Assets' and 
the two rules would catch up.


I know Aris is working on something of that sort, and I've heard 
rumors that others are interested in proposals about the state of the 
economy - but it seems like an easy way to say what you want in a way 
that is better handled in the future.


On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:49 PM Owen Jacobson > wrote:


As nobody had anything to say about the draft, I submit the
following proposal.

Proposal: Deregistration and Assets
Adoption index: 2
Authors: o
Co-authors: Aris

Amend rule 2485, "You can't take it with you", by changing its
title to
"You Can't Take It With You", then by changing the text to read, in
full:

   "Heir" is a person switch, tracked by the Registrar, whose value is
   either Agora (the default value), or a player other than emself, or
   an Organization. A player may flip eir Heir by announcement.

   When a player is deregistered, e automatically pays all of eir
   Shinies and transfers all of eir Estates to eir Heir, immediately
   before deregistration.

Amend rule 2461 ("Death and Birth of Organizations") by changing its
power to 2, then by adding the following paragraph between the
paragraph beginning "If an Organization's Income is ever lower [...]"
and the paragraph beginning "If a player's Expenditure is at most
[...]":

   Immediately before an Organization is destroyed, it automatically
   pays all of its Shinies to Agora, and transfers all of its Estates
   to Agora.

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:


  "Heir" is a person switch, tracked by the Registrar, whose value is
  either Agora (the default value), or a player other than emself, or
  an Organization. A player may flip eir Heir by announcement.


That "emself" seems to be a bit fishy grammar with unclear referent.

Greetings,
Ørjan.