On Monday 18 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote: > Doesn't play nicely with Limited Partnerships, Take Fifteen, unless > the Protectorate also happens to be a Partnership (in which case it > allegedly can register anyway) -- both because it's not a Partnership > itself and because it screws up the recursive definition of basis for > Partnerships of which the Protectorate is a member. It would be much > more elegant to come up with a definition of Agreements / Partnerships > such that Protectorates are naturally a subclass of Partnerships. > That way, anything that applies to Partnerships automatically applies > to Protectorates as well.
The point of this is to create a parallel method for non-natural persons to exist. The influence of Agoran law on them is limited (R2147) but any four players can cause a Protectorate to be deregistered for 30 days (R869). Of course this is completely pointless if CFJ 1687 is judged TRUE. > That aside, it seems odd that a Protectorate could be registered by a > set of two players who otherwise have nothing to do with that > Protectorate. Also, why only Protectorates? If we're going to allow > other nomics to register, we might as well let them register > regardless of Protectorate status. Good points, although I was hoping to skirt the hazy definition of a nomic and a player of a nomic.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
