Pavitra wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > calculated. A contract's Spirit can be Legal, Equitable, or both
> > (but must be at least one of Legal or Equitable); other rules
> A contract's Spirit can be Legal, Equitable, or Dual.
I thought of that. May as well.
> > The only appropriate sentence in a question on sentencing with
> > respect to a non-Legal contract is DISCHARGE. Equity cases can only
> > be initiated with respect to Equitable contracts, or with respect
> > to Hidden contracts; the only appropriate judgement for an Equity
> > case with respect to a non-Equitable Secret contract is the null
> > judgement.
> This logic should be elsewhere, like rules 2169 ("...in the operation
> of a particular Equitable or Dual contract") and 1742 ("Parties to a
> Legal or Dual contract SHALL act in accordance...").
> Actually for the latter you probably have the right idea organizing it
> by Enforceability, so something like "Parties to a Loose,
> non-Equitable contract SHALL act as specified by that contract."
Aha! Yes, that's the best way to do it, probably
> > Agreement (Power 2)
> > {{{
> > At any given time, for each document, each person is either not
> > agreeing to that document (the default), privately agreeing to that
> > document, or publically agreeing to that document; this is a
> > persistent status that can change only as described by rules with
> > power at least 1.5.
> This should be a switch. "Agreement is a switch possessed by each
> ordered pair of the form (person, document), with the possible values
> Demurring (default), Conspiring, and Professing."
>
> > * There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the
> > person was aware of or could easily have found out that an
> > attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made,
> > and could have ceased to agree to the document in question
> > during that time, with such ceasing to agree requiring no
> > effort beyond sending a message with no side-effects other
> > than the ceasing to agree itself.
> This would horribly break contracts that define assets whose ownership
> is restricted to parties.
Ugh, probably a bug. It's an interesting question, though; if a contract
specifies horrible penalties for leaving if it's amended, is that a good
thing? Maybe we should relax this a bit at the risk of allowing more
Protection-racket-like mousetraps.
> > Pledge is a possible value for Enforceability. A Pledge contract
> > can also be known as merely a pledge, unless this is unclear from
> > context.
> I'm not sure this could be abused in the case of pledges, but in
> general -- do these rules enable one person to unilaterally disband a
> contract by agreeing to a document with identical text, but doing so
> in a way that changes its Enforceability or Spirit? If not, can you
> explain exactly how they don't?
They don't, because the method by which a player agrees depends on its
current Enforceability. There isn't a mechanism to agree to someone
else's contract unless it specifically allows it, and even Unbinding
documents can restrict who can agree to them. So that handles
Enforceability. Spirit's deduced from the Enforceability and the
document's text (just like pledgeness used to be), so that isn't a
problem either.
> > Entities can act on behalf of parties to a contract as
> > specifically, clearly and unambiguously specified in a Public
> > contract, pledge, or Loose contract whose text is publically
> > available;
> "Entities can act on behalf of parties to a Public, Pledge, or Loose
> contract whose text is publically available as that contract clearly
> and unambiguously specifies."
Looks good.
> Pavitra, who totally wants coauthor credit on this
Of course, this probably needs a lot of feedback to work and everyone
who helps will get credit for the final proposal.
--
ais523
<<winmail.dat>>
