I create the following contract called "Anime Powers": -+- An anime is an asset. It can be held by any person, and Cuddlebeam can create one in his ownership by announcement. Cuddlebeam is the recordkeepor of animes.
The following list are the modifications to the transferral of animes: - Animes CANNOT be transferred during the years 69, 420 or 8008135. - When some natural number amount of animes are transferred, Cuddlebeam wins the game of Agora nomic. - When a person attempts to transfer no animes, Cuddlebeam wins the game of Agora nomic. -+- I create an anime in my ownership. I transfer one anime from myself to Peter Suber. I transfer no animes from myself to Peter Suber. I CFJ: In this message I have won the game. Grat Args: - Winning is regulated, and asset transfer is also regulated. - Asset transfer is regulated, and it seems like "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its backing document." allows you to 'inject' into the ruleset some text by indirect means. In fact, I can't transfer animes during the year 420; but that's not textually explicit in the ruleset, it's in the contract, but the ruleset is bound to what that contract says, because the ruleset itself says so. - So, regulated actions don't need to have their mechanisms entirely textually explicit in the rules themselves. (Many contract and promise regulated actions require this to be true.) - So, someone can win (a regulated action) without its method being just plainly spelt out into the Ruleset. - Back to "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its backing document.", there doesn't seem to be any limits (in regards to doing this, winning the game) to the scope of these modifications. - Winning Agora is regulated (it's tracked by the Rulekeepor), but we've already established that regulated actions don't need to have all of their mechanisms textually explicit in the Ruleset itself, that they can 'read' text from elsewhere and have that be as binding as the 'reading' mechanism allows - eg. promise rules, contract rules, Regulation rules, etc. - I also tried to use the "Attempts to transfer no assets are successful" clause if that's ever relevant somehow. - So yeah. I think I won. - I know for sure that the Judge is a very cool person. So cool in fact, that they will apply P1R217 in my favor, should it be required to be invoked.
