On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:17 PM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Gratuitous: the new contract was not the backing document for VP, as
>>> they would continue to exist if the new contract didn't exist, thus it
>>> couldn't grant the power to create VP.
>> Gratuitous: The same could be said about the Vote Market at that time.
> Yes, arguably VP ceased to have a backing document and BobTHJ couldn't
> create VP at the time either.
If an entity is _defined_ by a contract-- or any other bit of text--
that contract doesn't need anyone's permission to manipulate the
entity, not even Rule 2166's; on the contrary, Rule 2166 in most cases
does not purport to limit the ways that contracts can manipulate
assets: it merely provides reasonable defaults. If a contract
contradicted one of the non-'generally' clauses in Rule 2166, such as
if a contract specified that players CANNOT transfer stuff from the
LFD without objection, we're left in the messy business of Rule vs.
contract conflicts over a contract-defined entity. I believe this is
usually resolved with the argument that since contracts are by
definition governed by the Rules [Rule 1742], they have the power to
supersede contracts.
But that is not the case here. No contract is contradicting Rule
2166: in fact, Rule 2166 does not apply. Rather, we have two
different contracts Rule-legislated to be referring to the same
entity. By nature, it's impossible for an entity to be defined by two
different things: we can define e as lim[n->inf](1 + 1/n)^n, or as 1 +
1/1! + 1/2! + 1/3! + ..., but not as both unless we prove that they're
equivalent.* Yet a Rule:
If multiple rules or contracts (hereafter documents) attempt to
define an entity with the same name, then they refer to the same
entity.
says that it's possible. The only way to resolve this is to have the
currency in question defined by a combination of the two documents:
the Vote Market and ehird's pledge. If they contradicted each other,
then the state of Vote Points would be undefined. But the VM does not
explicitly say that ehird can't create VP by announcement; it is
consistent with both contracts to assume that e can.
So ehird successfully created a boatload of VP, and anyone can create
a contract to utterly screw up most assets. Hey, the alternative is
that anyone can create a contract to make assets unusable...
*Not that that stopped my math teacher last year from doing so.
