Michael Slone wrote: >In any case, I don't understand why y'all seem to think that someone >not party to an agreement can modify properties which essentially >supervene on that agreement.
The agreement's wording leaves this an open matter. It says "Shares are property owned by Agoran Players.", which brings in a lot of implicitness about how property behaves. My attempt at theft was based on an interpretation that that's one of the implicit features of property. Modification of shareholdings is regulated by "no Shareholder may adjust their number of Shares unless this charter, or a more powerful entity (Agoran law) allows it", but this is phrased in the pure Pragmatic manner and not phrased to bind non-Shareholders. So, by the standard argument deployed in Pragmatic nomics, a non-Shareholder may, and therefore can, adjust eir number of Shares in ways not specifically allowed by the charter. -zefram
