Oh hello there! And, don't worry about butting from the outside! I am too pretty lol. I get what you mean with "king of a country", but the issue is that the term used is simply "king", not "king of country". It's a recordkeepor of assets, not a plain recordkeepor, and a plain "recordkeepor" is the term used.
On the side, I can be *required* to be the rulekeepor of all things, whether or not I can or have the requirements for becoming that is something entirely different. And for it to be regulated, it just needs to be required, not actually effectively performed/done. So, it could hold up with that instead. On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:13 PM Jonatan Kilhamn <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 at 19:13, Cuddle Beam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I pledge the following: I pledge to be the recordkeepor of absolutely > > everything. > > > > I then CFJ the following: Non-regulated actions cannot be performed. > > > > Grat. Arguments for that CFJ: > > - From R2125: (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify > > information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor. > > - Via that pledge up there, I am required to be the recordkeepor of > > absolutely everything (which would include all actions). > > - Therefore, all actions are regulated, so performing a non-regulated > > action is impossible. > > - Note that: "The recordkeepor of a class of assets" is defined, but not > > simply a "recordkeepor". Defining what the King of Spain is doesn't > define > > what Kings are. I assume that "recordkeepor" means simply "someone who > > keeps a record of something", anyways. > > > > This could probably be done "better" with a contract because it's a > > stronger "require-ing" than a Pledge, and it could possibly help with > that > > backing document thing, but yeah. Let's give this a shot. > > I would like to enter the argument that giving a definition of "the > recordkeepor of a class of assets" is more like defining what "the > king of a country" is w.r.t. that country, than defining what the King > of Spain is. Your argument is something like saying that since we only > defined what foo(int x) does, you are free to interpret the entity > "foo" to mean the separate, hitherto by rules undefined function > foo(char c). > > If one accepts this, then the word "recordkeepor" is a rules-defined > term: it has that specific meaning, which requires there to be an > associated class of assets in order to make sense. I wouldn't say > "absolutely everything" sufficiently describes a class of entities > which are defined by that pledge of yours and exist solely because of > it. A pledge might not even strong enough to be the backing document; > I wouldn't know since I'm not very up-to-date on the rules but your > last paragraph seems to suggest this. > > Apologies for butting in from outside! I happened to open my "forums" > tab with its untold unread Agoran messages, saw an angle and couldn't > resist. > > Best regards, > ~Tiger > Agoran player circa 2010 >
