Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal
I retract the below proposal "Open Season II" Go for it guys. But I'm still rubberstamping the repeal, without three objections. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Allow them to be backing documents too and you've got a heavily simplified > version of the current contracts system. I think a heavily simplified > version is what we need right now. I'll have a go at it, and then someone > can edit me to make it less ridiculous. > > -Aris > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 6:19 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> >> I'm really uncomfortable both citing CFJ#s in the Rules, and saying in >> the Rules that agreements are interpreted "in the same fashion" as rules >> because that implies all kinds of things (like they're part of the >> rules, they can redefine things, how power/precedence works, etc). >> >> Here's some simple text I grabbed from the old days, just need to up >> the Power and add that players can use it for act-on-behalf: >> >> Rule 1742/9 (Power=1.5) >> Contracts >> >>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. Such an agreement is known as a >>contract. A contract may be modified, including changing the >>set of parties, by agreement between all parties. A contract >>may also terminate by agreement between all parties. A contract >>automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls >>below two. >> >>Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in >>accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired >>by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or >>between the contract and the rules. >> >>[Add something about requiring explicit consent, and something >>about explicit act-on-behalfs]. >> >> >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote: >> > I retract the below proposal and create _the following_ proposal >> > >> > I create the following proposal >> > Title: Open Season II >> > AI: 2 >> > Text: Create a new power 2.0 rule named "Common-Law Agreements" with the >> text >> > "Persons may act on behalf of other persons who are players in any way >> > the player unambiguously agrees to. cf CFJs 3474, 2397 and 1719. These >> > agreements should be interpreted in the same fashion as Rules are >> > under Rule 217." >> > >> >> -- >From V.J. Rada
BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal
I retract the below proposal and create _the following_ proposal I create the following proposal Title: Open Season II AI: 2 Text: Create a new power 2.0 rule named "Common-Law Agreements" with the text "Persons may act on behalf of other persons who are players in any way the player unambiguously agrees to. cf CFJs 3474, 2397 and 1719. These agreements should be interpreted in the same fashion as Rules are under Rule 217." On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Ned Strange wrote: > There is "Allowing a person to act on behalf of another person is > secured at power 2.0." in the rules. Which my proposed rule doesn't > affect, actually. So I guess G. was ultimately correct. > > I create the following proposal > Title: Open Season on Acting on Behalf > AI: 2 > Text: Create a new rule named "Common-Law Agreements" with the text > "Persons may act on behalf of other persons who are players in any way > the player unambiguously agrees to. cf CFJs 3474, 2397 and 1719. These > agreements should be interpreted in the same fashion as Rules are > under Rule 217." > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: >> The contracts infrastructure does not forclose such an arraignment. I made >> a ruling when the Agencies infrastructure was in place to the effect that >> having an explicit way to do something didn't stop people from doing things >> an earlier implicit way. >> >> -Aris >> >> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:45 PM Ned Strange >> wrote: >> >>> We have a CFJ claiming that Powers of Attorney agreements are valid as >>> a matter of common law. Obviously all the Contracts infrastructure >>> forecloses such an agreement because of all the specifications in it. >>> But they would presumably work afterwards. See CFJs 3474 and 2397 >>> (judged by you) and 1719 >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote: >>> >> Will this work? No. But I hate complicated systems that nobody uses. >>> >> And this one is incomprehensible and not what the game is really about >>> >> anymore. So I'm making the following point. >>> > >>> > I wholly agree with you. But can we add in a very simple stub that >>> > says something like "players can make agreements, and the agreements >>> > can include act-on-behalf" or something equally simple to empower >>> > that? >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada >>> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Technically Notary] Rubberstamp Repeal
There is "Allowing a person to act on behalf of another person is secured at power 2.0." in the rules. Which my proposed rule doesn't affect, actually. So I guess G. was ultimately correct. I create the following proposal Title: Open Season on Acting on Behalf AI: 2 Text: Create a new rule named "Common-Law Agreements" with the text "Persons may act on behalf of other persons who are players in any way the player unambiguously agrees to. cf CFJs 3474, 2397 and 1719. These agreements should be interpreted in the same fashion as Rules are under Rule 217." On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > The contracts infrastructure does not forclose such an arraignment. I made > a ruling when the Agencies infrastructure was in place to the effect that > having an explicit way to do something didn't stop people from doing things > an earlier implicit way. > > -Aris > > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:45 PM Ned Strange > wrote: > >> We have a CFJ claiming that Powers of Attorney agreements are valid as >> a matter of common law. Obviously all the Contracts infrastructure >> forecloses such an agreement because of all the specifications in it. >> But they would presumably work afterwards. See CFJs 3474 and 2397 >> (judged by you) and 1719 >> >> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote: >> >> Will this work? No. But I hate complicated systems that nobody uses. >> >> And this one is incomprehensible and not what the game is really about >> >> anymore. So I'm making the following point. >> > >> > I wholly agree with you. But can we add in a very simple stub that >> > says something like "players can make agreements, and the agreements >> > can include act-on-behalf" or something equally simple to empower >> > that? >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> -- >From V.J. Rada
