BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

A note: even if this fails, there’s still a lot of confusion about whether Value is Monetary, Numerical, or neither, so we should probably patch that at some point.

The real issue this needs to fix is that monetary values should be numerical values rounded to 2 decimal places.

I think that this CfJ is targeting the correct issue - the decimals problem can be fixed by proposal - but there isn’t a good reason why this can’t be doing both, just slipping in a clause that states that monetary values can be decimal doesn’t overload it too much I think

I think I’m confused on exactly what the scope of the issue is.

Given this tries to set a numeric value to 7.5, I think it is necessary to specify that monetary values don’t need to be integers

I perceive at least three distinct issues:

* The terms used for money transactions in the ruleset are inconsistent, leaving terms like ‘value’ and ‘cost’ undefined
* Money values are not defined by the ruleset as holding numbers
* Money values are implicitly defined as holding integers rather than decimals

I don’t think that the last two are an immediate problem; the lack of definition in the ruleset means that this case isn’t covered by the appendix, so the variable can hold anything, so the current values are legal. That could probably use fixing but it’s not urgent. The first problem makes a number of ruleset actions dubiously legal, though, so it seems right to me that that’s the urgent fix.

I went ahead and added in a fix for #3, #2 seems largely unimportant and outside the scope of this, so that can be saved for later.