Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Paragraphs and pineapples
On 2/28/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sigh. But that's the point. If you're not going to grant partnerships any benefits of registering why regulate them at all? It's just a wasted Rule. Voting Credits. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "You can't prove anything." -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Paragraphs and pineapples
On 2/27/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Even given that those M people might agree to create additional partnerships out of proper subsets, thus forming a bloc of 2^M-1 voters (including the natural persons)? Granted, this is Not Easy, either. Simpler -- don't give Partnerships any free votes. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "You can't prove anything." -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Paragraphs and pineapples
Goethe wrote:
How about something more radical and simple? Leave "persons" as
referring to all types of persons (not just natural), but insert
a single sentence "persons consisting of the same set of natural
persons are the same person". This would limit the arbitrary
issue, and puts partnerships nicely in line with our ideas on
person ("no avatars, a person is who e is, likewise, a partnership
is who e is.") In fact, if the PP is upheld to be a person, even
the current ruleset might allow that a later partnership made up
of Zefram and myself was the same partnership on theses principles.
While leaving both contracts in effect.
If you think about it, it's not too much of an abuse to allow any set of
M people to form a single partnership with personhood
rights... getting M people to agree partnership with rules for
doing things is Not Easy.
Even given that those M people might agree to create additional
partnerships out of proper subsets, thus forming a bloc of 2^M-1
voters (including the natural persons)? Granted, this is Not
Easy, either.
Groups were basically an intermediate case in which each natural
person could belong to at most one partnership at a time.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Paragraphs and pineapples
Goethe wrote: Murphy wrote: Upon the adoption of this proposal, each natural person who is part of a player that is not a natural person is awarded the Patent Title of Denny Crane. I object to this being treated as a cheap scam (whose perpetrators could be bought off with trinkets) rather than as a legitimate attempts to establish the rights of natural organizations such as partnerships within Agora's contract laws. It's not that the Pineapple Partnership is a scam, but that its validation under the current rules would open the door for boring scams (any pair of players could create and register an arbitrary number of partnerships differing only in name). Proto-Proposal: Civil unions (AI = 3, please) Amend Rule 478 (Fora) by replacing each instance of "player" in the following text with "person": A player "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. A player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that e performs it. A player performs an action "by private message" to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the specified player. Create a rule titled "Partnerships" with this text: A partnership is an agreement between two or more natural persons, published by at least one of them, that is explicitly designated as a partnership. Messages sent by a natural person belonging to a partnership are deemed to have been sent by the partnership if and only if they are explicitly designated as having this intent. Partnerships are not eligible voters. Amend Rule 1023 (Common Definitions) by replacing this text: The term "person" shall mean "natural person". with this text: The term "person" shall mean "natural person or partnership". Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Pineapple Partnership created by Goethe and Zefram on or about Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:17:17 + is registered. Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Patent Title of Denny Crane is revoked from Goethe and Zefram.
