On 6/18/07, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
proto-proposal: B Agreement AI: 2{{{ Amend rule 2147 by adding at the end Protectorates are permitted to register. Any player may, with three supporters, cause a Protectorate to be deregistered or, with one supporter, cause a Protectorate to register, provided that no other rule restricts these actions. A Protectorate is a person if and only if it is a player. This paragraph does not apply to R1742 binding agreements. }}}
Doesn't play nicely with Limited Partnerships, Take Fifteen, unless the Protectorate also happens to be a Partnership (in which case it allegedly can register anyway) -- both because it's not a Partnership itself and because it screws up the recursive definition of basis for Partnerships of which the Protectorate is a member. It would be much more elegant to come up with a definition of Agreements / Partnerships such that Protectorates are naturally a subclass of Partnerships. That way, anything that applies to Partnerships automatically applies to Protectorates as well. That aside, it seems odd that a Protectorate could be registered by a set of two players who otherwise have nothing to do with that Protectorate. Also, why only Protectorates? If we're going to allow other nomics to register, we might as well let them register regardless of Protectorate status. -root
