On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:22 AM James Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 14:50, [email protected]
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2019-06-07 at 14:44 +0000, James Cook wrote:
> > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 13:48, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > I light a candle.
> > >
> > > Does this actually work?
> > >
> > > As far as I can tell, you agree that you perform those actions, but
> > > what power does a contract have beyond saying that you agreed that
> > > that's true? What makes it so, e.g, the Treasuror should think you
> > > did those actions?
> >
> > It's a contract-defined abbreviation. There's been some controversy
> > about those in the past, and I can't remember how it was resolved.
> >
> > However, G. quoted the definition of the abbreviation in the email
> > itself, which is sufficient to make it work (as, e.g., the Treasuror
> > need look only at the email to determine which action G. is taking).
> > It's like saying "for the purpose of this email, to 'nkep' someone
> > means to transfer 5 coins to them", followed by nkeppig a bunch of
> > people (which also works).
>
> Thanks, that makes sense. I guess G.'s attempt works whether or not
> the contract exists, based on the quoting.
>
> While I'm on the topic, I'm confused about switches in contracts. D.
> Margaux's Church contract attempts to define switches (intended to
> work like offices) and the proto contract in Trigon's Arcadia
> tournament contract attempts to define a switch called Iteration Date.
> But R2162 says "A type of switch is a property that the rules define
> as a switch", and I don't see any rule saying that switches defined in
> contracts are switches. Is the idea that the parties to the contract
> should in terpret the contract as if the switches exist, because they
> agreed to the contract?
In the past, for things that the Rules don't explicitly allow
contracts to define, we initially put phrases in the bottom of
contracts ("the fine print") that said something like "switches
defined here work as if they were defined by the rules, but governed
by the contract" or even "contract switches work as per the rules
except for the following modifications" and eventually that was
established well enough that "the fine print" wasn't needed and common
sense application would work. It's been a while so who knows if a new
CFJ would find that convention holds...?
