Thursday, April 16, 2020

Proposal: The gift of giving

Times out 5-0. Enacted by Brendan.

Adminned at 18 Apr 2020 14:50:47 UTC

Enact a rule called “Items” with the same text as the subrule with the same name. Repeal said subrule.

Enact a subrule of the rule “Items” entitled “Giving” with the following text:

The Mayor of a non-Skittish Villager who has an item can cause that Villager (“the giver”) to give their item (“the cargo”) to another Villager (“the receiver”). This is an atomic action with the following steps:
* The receiver gains the cargo.
* The giver loses the cargo.

If the proposal “Fruitful Endeavors” has passed, amend the subrule “Giving” by deleting the text “who has an item” from the first paragraph, replacing the text ‘their item (“the cargo”)’ in the first paragraph with ‘either their item or a specified trinket (“the cargo” in both cases)’, and adding a paragraph at the end of the rule that reads:

The giving action fails if the giver does not have the cargo before the action is performed.

Quick proposal to define giving. If trading is to be a thing later, I think this is important. It also moves “Items” to its own rule. It’s a big enough concept that it merits the upgrade.

I made giving an atomic action because I don’t want items to be duplicated. This should make it so that there will be no bugs if we decide to track something based on how many items an Island has or anything along that vein.

I also did not include Bells as possible cargo because this could be used to scam the 40+ bell rule and I don’t know how to fix that. I also think that money transactions should be between players, not villagers, though my mind is potentially open to other opinions on this second point.


Darknight: he/him

16-04-2020 14:49:26 UTC

imperial til others chime in

Clucky: he/him

16-04-2020 19:05:08 UTC

I’m like the idea. I think it makes more sense if this is a task though.

Also “The giving action fails if the giver does not have the cargo before the action is performed.” shouldn’t be needed. Per “If a Player arrives at a step in an Atomic Action and they cannot perform that step, they undo all the steps they have performed of that Action and are considered never to have performed that Action.”, if you don’t have the item then you cannot complete the “* The giver loses the cargo.” step.

We might want to specify tasks are atomic. One potential avenue for abuse I see is that you could perform a task, then do this after apply the effect but before getting to “Unless the Effect specifies that the Effect is Minor, the Villager then loses the Item.”

it would be a bit of a stretch I would argue the “then” is immediate but wouldn’t be nomic if someone didn’t try a loop hole to argue semantics.


16-04-2020 20:35:36 UTC

My problem with making this a task is that giving would then cost 1 AP and 2 (or even 4) energy. I’m fine if giving costs *something* but I think the cost of a full task is a bit excessive.

Thank you also for the notice about the redundancy. I debated about putting the last paragraph in there and eventually decided rather be safe than sorry. We can always edit that out later.

I also agree that your reasoning for making tasks atomic makes a lot of sense. Definitely worth consideration.

Brendan: he/him

17-04-2020 14:59:53 UTC


Clucky: he/him

17-04-2020 15:40:22 UTC



17-04-2020 15:54:32 UTC