On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 08:18, Charles Walker wrote:
> On 31 July 2011 23:54, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> Set the power of rule 2166 (Assets) to 3.
>>
>> [Rationale: promises are assets at Power 3, so the defining rule needs
>> to be, too.]
>
> Why?
Many of the asset properties of promises don't fall naturally from the
natural-language definition, and the asset rule defines many
non-natural properties (such as sometimes-implicit transfers to the
Lost and Found Department) of promises that substantially effect their
operation. If any modification to the Asset rules would be effective
at changing the properties of Promises, then clearly that gives a
escalation scam at Power 2. If not, then the question is where that
line is -- and it probably is ambiguous (perhaps even as to how much
the generic asset rules apply now to promises), which is not so good
for the stability of the rules.
- woggle
