But whether or not they are in a contract has no bearing on anything at all until they decide to do something contingent on its text. Contracts are untracked.
-twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, September 30, 2018 8:22 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > The contract could say: > > “Nobody can join this contract and all members of it leave it immediately” > or something like that. > > But we don’t know if it has a content like that or not, so how can we know > they’re in a contract? It’s not solely “document + consent”. The content of > that document is necesary too to know it. > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 10:19, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > A contract is a document plus consent. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:18 AM Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > A document sure, but: > > > A contract? That’s the issue. > > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 10:17, Aris Merchant < > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > All they’ve done is agree to abide by a document. That wasn’t hidden. > > > > If > > > > > > > they do something based off that, then the probably will need to prove > > > > it, > > > > at least to the judge. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:15 AM Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > About the evidence thing, wouldn’t the hidden-actions that G and DMar > > > > > need > > > > > evidence as well that they have formally happened? > > > > > Or, since there is no evidence, just like my own thing, it didn’t > > > > > actually > > > > > happen? (Until its shown that it has, in which case reality suddenly > > > > > changes to it like that newspaper in Back to the Future? Shröninger!) > > > > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 10:07, Aris Merchant < > > > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Generally, I think we’d expect you to present evidence that you > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > right. > > > > > > > > > > > Also, welcome back CuddleBeam. > > > > > > H. Herald, we don’t appear to have ever made CuddleBeam a > > > > > > scampster. > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > > is a grave oversight. I (informally, but I’ll make it formal after > > > > > > Patent > > > > > > > > > > > Petitions have passed if I have to) petition that immediate action > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > taken > > > > > > > > > > > to rectify this situation. > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 11:15 PM Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I’m curious about how CfJs and the gamestate would work with > > > > > > > secret > > > > > > > > > > gamestate info like this. > > > > > > > I become part of that contract. > > > > > > > By virtue of that contract, I act on behalf of G. and D Margaux > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > transfer > > > > > > > > > > > > > all of their assets to myself. > > > > > > > By virtue of that contract, I destroy that contract. > > > > > > > Now, of course, what I’ve done could’ve been total bullshit but > > > > > > > feel > > > > > > > > > free > > > > > > > > > > > > to CfJ and present evidence against what I’ve just done to > > > > > > > prove > > > > > > > me > > > > > > > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 01:12, Kerim Aydin < > > > > > > > ke...@u.washington.edu> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree to the exchanged Contract with this hash. -G. > > > > > > > > On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > G. and I have exchanged a document that has text with the > > > > > > > > > following > > > > > > > > > > > > > SHA256 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hash: > > > > > > 58629980096A5E997EC5CF62C04B59EBFBEEAF81DD4785B50CCF190E1F24CE2D > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree to be bound by that text and I agree and consent for > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > text > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be a contract between me and G., if G. likewise agrees.
