On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 6:52 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On 2/20/2020 5:49 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 2/20/20 7:08 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > >> So when R1742 was re-implemented (replacing R2520-2527), we still ended > up > >> with "Agora = agreement" and "contract = agreement" but the link "Agora > = > >> contract", while not inconsistent with the R1742 text, was never > re-created. > >> > >> -G. > >> > > > > I don't really buy this. My reading of the current rule is "if it's an > > agreement, and it was made with the intention that it would be binding > > upon the parties and governed by the rules, it's a contract". The > > definition in the rules doesn't depend on whether something was a > > contract in the past. > > > > So if the 2017 definition of "contract" clearly did NOT include the Rules, > then (when the rules changed in 2018) there had to be a "moment of > becoming a contract" for the rules, presumably when the 2018 proposal was > adopted. However, making something a contract requires someone's explicit > consent - how was the consent given? You could say something like "well, > by the voting" but that doesn't sound like explicit consent to create a > contract to me. > > Also fun: the first clause of the 2018 proposal (8054) was: "Destroy all > contracts". Wait, how does that last bit cause any trouble? P8054 destroyed all 2017 contracts, and we've agreed (I think) that Agora definitely isn't a 2017 contract due to that clause I baked in about contracts being subservient to the rules. So P8054 didn't even try to destroy Agora. -Aris > > > >
