On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Charles Reiss wrote:
> 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.
The way it's supposed to work now is a compromise: a power-2 scam
could transfer exist
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
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?
--
Charles Walker
3 matches
Mail list logo
