Roger Hicks wrote: >a Property is ever not owned by a POE, it ceases to exist.
You probably don't want Properties popping out of existence like that. Especially if the rules say that they exist. Consider having a default POE (the Treasury) which picks up all unowned Property. > sole right to act upon and use that Property "act upon" is too vague. "use" is better, and can stand alone. > No POE may act upon or use a Property that it does >not own. I think you want "can", not "may". Make it impossible rather than forbidden. Same goes for many other sentences. > Property ownership may not be >divided among multiple POEs. Presumably you don't intend to outlaw contracts that result in shared control of Property. >* The name of the POE who owns the Property or Properties in question "name of the" is superfluous and opens up potential scams. >The process of tranferring Property from one POE to another is known as >Payment. Potentially confusing. The term "payment" in ordinary English refers to property transfers made to satisfy an obligation. Other forms of property transfer include vending and gifting. >If a rule states that a POE must pay a specified type and amount of >property, then that POE must do so as soon as possible by Transfer Notice. >Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the rules. Turn "must" into "is obliged to", and you can lose the second sentence. >If a rule states that a POE pays a specified type and amount of property, >then that property is transferred to the designated receiving POE >automatically, as if it's owner had posted a valid Transfer Notice >initiating such an action. Defining automatic transfers in terms of manual transfers is an abstraction inversion. Better to define the semantics of property transfer separately, then in the appropriate places say that it can happen automatically or via a Transfer Notice. >When this Proposal passes, $10,000 shall be created and given to each >registered Player who is a natural person, and $1,000 shall be created and >given to each registered Player who is a non-natural person. Please don't feed the partnerships. Overall, you've succeeded in defining the mechanics of capitalism, and created an inherently scarce commodity. All the elements are there for capitalist activity to commence, if there's anything to capitalise about. I'll be interested to see what transpires, as this is nearly putting things in the natural order. Glad you're not making any of the natural resources artificially scarce. -zefram
