On 12/12/2011 01:52 AM, ais523 wrote: > On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 07:46 +0000, Alex Smith wrote: >> I intend, without objection, to transfer rule 2166 from the Lost and >> Found department to myself. >> >> (This works because rules fulfil the definition of assets; they exist >> only because they're rules-defined (their backing document is rule 2141, >> incidentally). They can't be destroyed by announcement even if you own >> them due to higher-powered rules saying so; but I see no reason why they >> can't be transferred, because rule ownership isn't a substantive aspect >> of a rule.) > > Sorry, false alarm; I missed the bit where assets have to be defined as > assets to actually be assets > > Still, it'd be interesting to make rules into assets, possibly. I'm not > sure what we'd do with them, but it could be interesting.
It might make the owner of a rule able to destroy that rule by announcement.
