Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Contractually-scoped Objects

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

I like the concept of Things as a sub-class of Game Objects. Techically the
Thing has to exist within the game because it is part of gamestate, but I
think one avenue to fix this "where does it exist" problem would be to
specify that Things are a type of Game Object created by a Contract which,
unless explicitly referred to by game documents or game actions external to
the contract, may not affect these in any way (and the converse maybe should
be true as well). I guess the effect I'm going for would be to acknowledge
the existence of Things throughout the entire game but to confine their
powers to the Contract that created them. Of course we need a stricter
definition of "external to the contract" so that things run smoothly.

But I'm thinking something like the above should allow/disallow things in
the following manner, roughly:

e.g.

I create a contract called "QWERTY", which defines a Thing called the Bag of
a Million Points, which may be owned by a single Party to QWERTY at any
given time. (so far so good)

Wooble and Charles join QWERTY. There arises a dispute over whether or not
Charles has managed to seize the Bag of a Million Points from its initial
owner, me. (still alright so far)

Both Charles and I attempt to use the Bag of a Million Points to, believe it
or not, grant ourselves one million points in B! (INVALID in both cases,
because points are external to the contract (how could we define
external/internal tightly?))

(not that the bag of a million points still exists as a Thing, even though
its purported power as defined by the QWERTY contract is bogus)

0x44 submits a transaction to the effect that IF Charles owns the Bag of a
Million Points, 0x44 does Game Action XYZ. (VALID, the Thing can affect
gamestate outside the Contract since it was referenced by a Game Action.)

A Rule is enacted by entities hostile to QWERTY, not allowing whoever holds
the Bag of a Million points at any given time to vote. (VALID, since
explicitly referred to by a Proposal/Rule. A Consultation on the matter of
who owns the bag would also be valid for the same reason, since
proposals/rules/consults are all game documents).

I'm sure there exists a problem with this somewhere. Where is it?


On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> I submit this revised proposal text for my earlier submitted proposal:
>
> {{
>
> Contracts may create Things, which are Game Objects that exist only
> within the scope of that Contract but may be referenced from other
> contexts.
>
> }}
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss