On Jan 24, 2008 9:19 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I submit the following Proposal, entitled "Smaller Contracts" and set
> its AI to 1.5:
> {{
> In Rule 1742, replace the text
> Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among
> themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and
> be governed by the rules.
> with
> Any person or group of persons may create an agreement with the intention
> that it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules.
> }}
Looks fine to me. In my opinion, CFJs 1682-1683 and the subsequent
R1742 amendment were all politically motivated by the desire to avoid
single-person partnerships. But at present, R2145 also puts a
two-party minimum on partnerships, so the R1742 requirement really
shouldn't be necessary any longer.
> I believe that as the Rule is written, single-player Pledges should be
> impossible to create, and game custom in how Contests are created is
> probably slightly broken as it seems that generally one player claims
> to create a Contract emself, which is made into a Contest without 3
> objections.
Single-player pledges can be created by agreement between two players,
one of whom then leaves. But you're right in that it's impossible to
create a pledge by oneself. The custom with contests is that the
contract does not actually form until a second party joins it. It
can't be made a contest before that.
> Requiring at least 2 persons to be parties to a new
> contract but setting lower minimums for certain types of contracts
> before they terminate is a bit odd too. (Except for Locations; they
> wouldn't work well if the person creating them couldn't move to
> another Location).
Agreed.
-root
