On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:51 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to this pledge:
1) This is a public contract.
2) This contract is a pledge.
3) Rules with an ID number of 2166 are a class of fixed assets
restricted to players, with the Rulekeepor as recordkeepor.
4) comex may
On 3/11/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I considered something like this in my original scam, but it falls
afoul of R105.
Does it? I think destroying a rule is unambiguously equivalent to
repealing it. Either way, the purpose of this was to prevent the
publishing of a contract similar
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/11/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I considered something like this in my original scam, but it falls
afoul of R105.
Does it? I think destroying a rule is unambiguously equivalent to
repealing it. Either
root wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/11/08, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I considered something like this in my original scam, but it falls
afoul of R105.
Does it? I think destroying a rule is unambiguously equivalent to
repealing
Ed Murphy wrote:
What auto-destroy mechanism?
Rule 2166:
Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise
lack an owner, it is owned by the Bank. If an asset's backing
document restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then
that asset CANNOT be gained
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The claim being made is that unowned assets get transferred to the
Bank (by the second sentence) and then destroyed (by the second half
of the third), if the Bank is not an authorised owner. That's highly
dubious; I think
root wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The claim being made is that unowned assets get transferred to the
Bank (by the second sentence) and then destroyed (by the second half
of the third), if the Bank is not an authorised owner. That's highly
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But that would still be a gain, thus prevented by the first half of the
third sentence.
The rule also says Each asset has exactly one owner. If the Bank
can't own it by default, then who does? At best, the rule is
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If your logic is accepted, then contest-defined assets are not
properly defined, since they fail to define the entity required to
track them. Additionally, rests were not properly defined (since
R2195 did not define the
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been thinking about this a bit further, and it seems there are
two possibilities. It seems clear that R2166 in some sense requires a
defined asset to have a defined recordkeepor, but it's less clear
whether a
ihope wrote:
I agree to this pledge: When this contract is created, Ivan Hope
CXXVII is awarded 1,000,000 Notes of every type, then this contract
terminates itself.
I'd CFJ on the statement Ivan Hope CXXVII has at least 1,000,000
Notes of every type, but that'd be just silly, I think.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
The rule also says Each asset has exactly one owner.
That provision may well be broken due to the rule failing to provide a
mechanism to enforce it.
I don't think it is. As comex has pointed out, gain has a
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:26 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Bob is a person.
* Bob is a player.
Unlikely. R2166 doesn't define what a person is, which is the
requirement of R2150. Instead, it merely imposes some contractually
defined regulation upon them.
* Bob is a first-class
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:44 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree to this pledge: When this contract is created, Ivan Hope
CXXVII is awarded 1,000,000 Notes of every type, then this contract
terminates itself.
This doesn't meet the criteria of a backing document as laid out in
R2166.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:47 PM, ihope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...though perhaps that was unwanted, as I failed to see the point of
these previous pledges the first time around.
The reason I think mine worked is the first sentence of R2166:
An asset is an entity defined as such by an
15 matches
Mail list logo
