DIS: [attn. non-Contestants] Diplonomic Teammate Request
Diplonomic 2020 is starting soon, and Aris and Trigon (a non-contestant) are planning to team up and play as one, and submit a proposal to allow it. Is there anyone else who was interested in playing but didn't get in in time? I would be happy to have a teammate. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood russian notary here :)
DIS: [Rulekeepor] Unofficial ACORN
THE AGORA NOMIC CODE OF REGULATIONS These ACORNs are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ Date of this ACORN: 9 Jul 2020 The Birthday Tournament This section has the regulations governing the Birthday Tournament. Regulation BT0/0 Birthday Tournament 0 P.S.S. CANNOT win this Tournament or become a Contestant. P.S.S. is the Gamemaster and Judge of this game. Regulation BT2/1 Birthday Tournament 2 The Gamemaster CAN cause any person to cease to be a Contestant by announcement. The Gamemaster CAN cause any consenting person to become a Contestant by announcement. The Gamemaster CAN, by announcement, amend the gamestate by substituting one Contestant into all instances of another Contestant. The Gamemaster CAN amend the text of the Diplonomic 2020 rules arbitrarily in order to prevent breaches of Agoran custom or rules. The Gamemaster SHOULD NOT take any actions permitted by this section unless it is in the best interests of the game. Regulation BT3/0 Birthday Tournament 3 When all contestants except one have been eliminated from the contest, the victor is the last contestant remaining. The judge SHALL then, with 2 days notice, announce them as winners, whereupon they win the tournament and the tournament is concluded. If the judge believes that more than one person is deserving of the win, e CAN announce them all as winners. The judge SHOULD award a badge to all participants in the Tournament, broadly construed, after the conclusion of the Tournament unless it has not been completed in a satisfactory manner. Regulation BT4/0 Birthday Tournament 4 The judge is the final arbitor on matters of this tournament, and eir decisions can be overturned if and only if a CFJ finds eir decisions were made with arbitrary or capricious disregard for the terms of these regulations. The judge shall adjudicate these regulations in an equitable manner, with emphasis placed on the intent of the clauses and the fair treatment of all parties. Regulation BT26/0 Birthday Tournament 26 This year's Birthday Tournament shall be known as "Diplonomic 2020" and governed by these regulations and the Diplonomic 2020 rules. Regulation BT27/0 Birthday Tournament 27 The Diplonomic 2020 rules SHALL be promulgated by the Gamemaster no later than July 10. All Contestants and the Gamemaster SHALL obide by them. The Gamemaster CAN amend the Diplonomic 2020 rules in accordance with those rules and these regulations. Regulation BT28/1 Birthday Tournament 28 Unless explicitly permitted by the Diplonomic 2020 rules, all Contestants SHALL NOT engage in any behaviors outside of Diplonomic 2020 as part of negotiations or other activities intended to influence the course of Diplonomic 2020. Unless explicitly prohibited by the Diplonomic 2020 rules, Contestants are encouraged to lie and cheat each other and SHOULD NOT be found in violation of "No Faking" for actions taken within Diplonomic 2020.
DIS: Re: BUS: Temporary Lockbox [attn. Notary, Treasuror]
On 7/8/2020 2:33 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
On 7/7/20 5:11 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I consent to, and create, a contract whose title is "Anti-Trigon
Lockbox" and with the following text:
{
Jason is the only party to this contract. If any other person becomes
party to this contract, e immediately ceases being party to this contract.
Jason, acting as emself, CAN by announcement transfer assets from this
contract.
}
I do not consent to other persons joining this contract.
I transfer the above contract every liquid asset in my possession except
for 20 coins.
If the above contract has no assets (which I think it doesn't), I
consent to its destruction and destroy it.
I'm super idiotic. I was searching the list for where you transferred
all its assets back to yourself before realizing it was in the message
right above.
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates life [Attn. Notary]
thanks guys On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:57 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/8/20 10:56 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > > What would be the fix? I don't entirely understand the mistake, sorry. > It's > > trivial for me to destroy the contract and remake it with a shorter > timer. > > I just made it 24h for the gravitas lol. > > It's simply a typo: it says "contact" where it should read "contract". > > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:38 PM ATMunn via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On 7/8/2020 1:59 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > >>> > >>> Cuddlebeam is the sole member to this contract. After 24 hours have > >>> passed since this instance of this contract has been created, a copy of > >>> this contact (a new instance of it) is made. Cuddlebeam consents and > >> agrees > >>> with themselves that these new contracts are made in this specific way. > >>> > >> > >> I'd like to point out that this says "a copy of this *contact*", not > >> contract. I know our custom tends to be that typos don't matter if you > >> know what the person meant, but this might be significant enough to > >> break it. > >> > >> Sending this to a-b so it can be considered a gratuitous argument for > >> the CFJ that will inevitably be called. > >> > >> -- > >> ATMunn > >> friendly neighborhood notary here :) > >> > > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates life [Attn. Notary]
On 7/8/20 10:56 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > What would be the fix? I don't entirely understand the mistake, sorry. It's > trivial for me to destroy the contract and remake it with a shorter timer. > I just made it 24h for the gravitas lol. It's simply a typo: it says "contact" where it should read "contract". > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:38 PM ATMunn via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 7/8/2020 1:59 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: >>> >>> Cuddlebeam is the sole member to this contract. After 24 hours have >>> passed since this instance of this contract has been created, a copy of >>> this contact (a new instance of it) is made. Cuddlebeam consents and >> agrees >>> with themselves that these new contracts are made in this specific way. >>> >> >> I'd like to point out that this says "a copy of this *contact*", not >> contract. I know our custom tends to be that typos don't matter if you >> know what the person meant, but this might be significant enough to >> break it. >> >> Sending this to a-b so it can be considered a gratuitous argument for >> the CFJ that will inevitably be called. >> >> -- >> ATMunn >> friendly neighborhood notary here :) >> -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates life [Attn. Notary]
What would be the fix? I don't entirely understand the mistake, sorry. It's trivial for me to destroy the contract and remake it with a shorter timer. I just made it 24h for the gravitas lol. On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:38 PM ATMunn via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/8/2020 1:59 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > > > > Cuddlebeam is the sole member to this contract. After 24 hours have > > passed since this instance of this contract has been created, a copy of > > this contact (a new instance of it) is made. Cuddlebeam consents and > agrees > > with themselves that these new contracts are made in this specific way. > > > > I'd like to point out that this says "a copy of this *contact*", not > contract. I know our custom tends to be that typos don't matter if you > know what the person meant, but this might be significant enough to > break it. > > Sending this to a-b so it can be considered a gratuitous argument for > the CFJ that will inevitably be called. > > -- > ATMunn > friendly neighborhood notary here :) >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates life [Attn. Notary]
On 7/8/2020 7:33 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/8/2020 2:26 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: >> As fun as this is, contracts cannot perform actions automatically. I >> guess you could amend it so that you CAN do so, but at that point, >> there's no real reason for the contracts to fork like this since you can >> just create a large number of dummy contracts and that would be probably >> just as effective at annoying the heck out of the Notary. But players can create contracts with consent, and we've allowed contract texts to "automatically determine consent". That's the only reason things like "a new party can join by announcement" in a contract's text works. So if this doesn't work, then a contract text saying "people can join by announcement" or anything similar doesn't work, either. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates life [Attn. Notary]
On 7/8/2020 2:26 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: As fun as this is, contracts cannot perform actions automatically. I guess you could amend it so that you CAN do so, but at that point, there's no real reason for the contracts to fork like this since you can just create a large number of dummy contracts and that would be probably just as effective at annoying the heck out of the Notary. :) -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8459-8472
no u On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 2:48 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 7/8/20 2:25 AM, omd via agora-business wrote: > > at 6:27 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official > > > wrote: > > > >> 8464 You can certify, but you can't win ever! REJECTED > > CoE: Proposal 8464 was not validly distributed, because the > distribution > > message was internally inconsistent as to who authored it (and its > validity > > did not self-ratify because I CoEd it along with my vote). > > > Denied. > > -- > Jason Cobb > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8459-8472
at 11:43 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:00 PM omd via agora-business wrote: CoE: The distribution message is inconsistent about who authored this proposal. If it was validly distributed, AGAINST. Denied. The message said: "Where the information shown below differs from the information shown above, the information shown above shall control." The notice as a whole was consistent and correct. Oh, fair enough. Didn’t see that.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates life [Attn. Notary]
how would they become publicly unavailable though? On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 9:26 AM N. S. via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > well,,, it might not work. there could be a problem with the reproduction > being "a change that would make the contract's text publicly unavailable" > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 5:20 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I don't intend to overload our Notary with work. Once I have the > > Contracolis reproduce once or twice my intention is to CfJ to confirm > that > > they have reproduced and then destroy them all. > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 8:50 AM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 2020-07-08 00:39, N. S. via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > yep, i'm also quite sure that this works, a person can consent > entirely > > > by > > > > contract and consenting is sufficient to create a contract. this > could > > be > > > > called, quite circular. > > > > > > Well, dang. Sorry, ATMunn. I tried. > > > > > > -- > > > Trigon > > > > > > I LOVE SPAGHETTI > > > transfer Jason one coin > > > nch was here > > > I hereby > > > don't... trust... the dragon... > > > don't... trust... the dragon... > > > Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this > > > > > > > > -- > From R. Lee >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates life [Attn. Notary]
well,,, it might not work. there could be a problem with the reproduction being "a change that would make the contract's text publicly unavailable" On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 5:20 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I don't intend to overload our Notary with work. Once I have the > Contracolis reproduce once or twice my intention is to CfJ to confirm that > they have reproduced and then destroy them all. > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 8:50 AM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 2020-07-08 00:39, N. S. via agora-discussion wrote: > > > yep, i'm also quite sure that this works, a person can consent entirely > > by > > > contract and consenting is sufficient to create a contract. this could > be > > > called, quite circular. > > > > Well, dang. Sorry, ATMunn. I tried. > > > > -- > > Trigon > > > > I LOVE SPAGHETTI > > transfer Jason one coin > > nch was here > > I hereby > > don't... trust... the dragon... > > don't... trust... the dragon... > > Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates life [Attn. Notary]
I don't intend to overload our Notary with work. Once I have the Contracolis reproduce once or twice my intention is to CfJ to confirm that they have reproduced and then destroy them all. On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 8:50 AM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 2020-07-08 00:39, N. S. via agora-discussion wrote: > > yep, i'm also quite sure that this works, a person can consent entirely > by > > contract and consenting is sufficient to create a contract. this could be > > called, quite circular. > > Well, dang. Sorry, ATMunn. I tried. > > -- > Trigon > > I LOVE SPAGHETTI > transfer Jason one coin > nch was here > I hereby > don't... trust... the dragon... > don't... trust... the dragon... > Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this >
DIS: Re: BUS: Doubloon Intent
Yarr, I support as well. Let's haul in this here buxom loot, mateys! On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 8:36 AM omd via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > at 4:52 PM, N. S. via agora-business > wrote: > > > I intent to transfer 125 coins (the current amount it has) from the L > > department to the Plundership, w/o objection > > I support. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Contract] Public Lockers
at 11:30 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: Damn it. I broke that one way, and then my fix broke it another way. You are referring, I presume, to the fact that one doesn't need to consent to create a promise? Yeah. At least I can't think of a situation where that's exploitable where you wouldn't be able to do something under R2519(2) anyway. Hmm... R2519(2) wouldn’t apply in the case of other sources of act-on-behalf besides contracts, but I suppose none of them are exploitable: - Zombies: you already patched the zombies rule to forbid making a zombie create a promise. - The Administrative State: creating a promise probably doesn’t count as an officer “exercising eir official powers”. (But I’d love to see a case where it did.) - Promises themselves: not applicable since being able to manufacture consent through promises is by design. Also, I think there's a pretty fair argument that R869's anti-mousetrap clause requires consent anyway, though again, R2519(2) likely provides it for the case of contract exploits. Heh, I forgot that Rule 869’s anti-mousetrap clause was still there. Rule 2519’s definition of consent is at power 3, but I wonder if there could be some difference between “consent” and Rule 869’s “willful consent”.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates life [Attn. Notary]
On 2020-07-08 00:39, N. S. via agora-discussion wrote: yep, i'm also quite sure that this works, a person can consent entirely by contract and consenting is sufficient to create a contract. this could be called, quite circular. Well, dang. Sorry, ATMunn. I tried. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates life [Attn. Notary]
yep, i'm also quite sure that this works, a person can consent entirely by contract and consenting is sufficient to create a contract. this could be called, quite circular. On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:30 PM omd via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > at 11:26 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > On 2020-07-07 23:59, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > >> I have no idea if this works, but it might be useful for certain > >> applications. Experimentation!!! > >> I create the following contract called "Contracoli": > >> > >> Cuddlebeam is the sole member to this contract. After 24 hours have > >> passed since this instance of this contract has been created, a copy of > >> this contact (a new instance of it) is made. Cuddlebeam consents and > >> agrees > >> with themselves that these new contracts are made in this specific way. > >> > >> I hereby publicly consent to and agree with myself to have Contracoli > >> contracts be generated in the way described above. > > > > As fun as this is, contracts cannot perform actions automatically. I > > guess you could amend it so that you CAN do so, but at that point, > > there's no real reason for the contracts to fork like this since you > can > > just create a large number of dummy contracts and that would be > probably > > just as effective at annoying the heck out of the Notary. > > They can’t perform actions in general automatically. But by Rule 2519 > they > can give consent, and CFJs 3849-50 held that consent is actually the > mechanism for contract changes. So I think this works. > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Contract] Public Lockers
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:20 PM omd via agora-discussion wrote: > > at 11:06 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > I think that having single-party contracts feels / is safer. You can > > arbitrarily amend it without needing to rely on anyone else and nobody else > > can join it which adds another layer of speculative protection. > > I don’t think single-party contracts are secure, though. Regardless of > what the text says about amendment, by R1742 it can always be done “with > the consent of all existing parties”. Consent can’t be given by someone > acting on behalf of you, since R2519(1) says “acting as emself”… but it > doesn’t have to be. If the concern is that you’d get caught in a mousetrap > contract that would allow others to act on behalf of you, that contract can > also make you consent by R2519(2). > > There's also a certain loophole in R2519 that makes the “acting as emself” > guard useless... Damn it. I broke that one way, and then my fix broke it another way. You are referring, I presume, to the fact that one doesn't need to consent to create a promise? At least I can't think of a situation where that's exploitable where you wouldn't be able to do something under R2519(2) anyway. Also, I think there's a pretty fair argument that R869's anti-mousetrap clause requires consent anyway, though again, R2519(2) likely provides it for the case of contract exploits. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates life [Attn. Notary]
at 11:26 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-07-07 23:59, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: I have no idea if this works, but it might be useful for certain applications. Experimentation!!! I create the following contract called "Contracoli": Cuddlebeam is the sole member to this contract. After 24 hours have passed since this instance of this contract has been created, a copy of this contact (a new instance of it) is made. Cuddlebeam consents and agrees with themselves that these new contracts are made in this specific way. I hereby publicly consent to and agree with myself to have Contracoli contracts be generated in the way described above. As fun as this is, contracts cannot perform actions automatically. I guess you could amend it so that you CAN do so, but at that point, there's no real reason for the contracts to fork like this since you can just create a large number of dummy contracts and that would be probably just as effective at annoying the heck out of the Notary. They can’t perform actions in general automatically. But by Rule 2519 they can give consent, and CFJs 3849-50 held that consent is actually the mechanism for contract changes. So I think this works.
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates life [Attn. Notary]
On 2020-07-07 23:59, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: I have no idea if this works, but it might be useful for certain applications. Experimentation!!! I create the following contract called "Contracoli": Cuddlebeam is the sole member to this contract. After 24 hours have passed since this instance of this contract has been created, a copy of this contact (a new instance of it) is made. Cuddlebeam consents and agrees with themselves that these new contracts are made in this specific way. I hereby publicly consent to and agree with myself to have Contracoli contracts be generated in the way described above. As fun as this is, contracts cannot perform actions automatically. I guess you could amend it so that you CAN do so, but at that point, there's no real reason for the contracts to fork like this since you can just create a large number of dummy contracts and that would be probably just as effective at annoying the heck out of the Notary. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Contract] Public Lockers
at 11:06 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: I think that having single-party contracts feels / is safer. You can arbitrarily amend it without needing to rely on anyone else and nobody else can join it which adds another layer of speculative protection. I don’t think single-party contracts are secure, though. Regardless of what the text says about amendment, by R1742 it can always be done “with the consent of all existing parties”. Consent can’t be given by someone acting on behalf of you, since R2519(1) says “acting as emself”… but it doesn’t have to be. If the concern is that you’d get caught in a mousetrap contract that would allow others to act on behalf of you, that contract can also make you consent by R2519(2). There's also a certain loophole in R2519 that makes the “acting as emself” guard useless...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: just a normal action
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 11:15 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > ATEOISIDTIDWHPAFALT > > lmfao what is this See this [1]. [1] http://zenith.homelinux.net/agora_acronyms.php -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: just a normal action
it's a nonsense acronym meant to refer to "ISIDTID" (i said i did therefore i did), which is the agoran fallacy that you can do anything as long as you say so. On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:15 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > ATEOISIDTIDWHPAFALT > > lmfao what is this > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 2:12 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 5:00 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 7/7/20 7:55 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > > > > I cease to exist. > > > > > > > > > > This is probably a regulated action because it would change information > > > for which the Registrar is the recordkeepor, and thus you would need a > > > method provided by a statute to cease to exist > > > > > > Even if it weren't, this is blatantly ATEOISIDTIDWHPAFALT. > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: just a normal action
> ATEOISIDTIDWHPAFALT lmfao what is this On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 2:12 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 5:00 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 7/7/20 7:55 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > > > I cease to exist. > > > > > > > This is probably a regulated action because it would change information > > for which the Registrar is the recordkeepor, and thus you would need a > > method provided by a statute to cease to exist > > > Even if it weren't, this is blatantly ATEOISIDTIDWHPAFALT. > > -Aris > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: [Contract] Public Lockers
I think that having single-party contracts feels / is safer. You can
arbitrarily amend it without needing to rely on anyone else and nobody else
can join it which adds another layer of speculative protection.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 12:03 AM ATMunn via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I've noticed a few people making "locker" contracts for themselves to
> hold their assets. I thought it might be nice to have one contract that
> everyone can use instead of everybody making their own contracts. Let me
> know if there's any issues with the wording here.
>
> I create, consent to, and become a party to the following contract,
> entitled "The Bank":
>
> {
>
> Any person CAN become a party, or cease to be a party, to this contract
> by announcement.
>
> When a person transfers any number of assets to this contract, those
> assets are considered to be in eir account. A party to this contract CAN
> transfer any number of assets from eir account to emself. Attempts to
> transfer more assets to emself than are in eir account are INEFFECTIVE.
>
> The person who has been party to this contract the longest is known as
> the Bankor. The Bankor SHOULD publish the contents of all accounts in a
> report weekly.
>
> Any party to this contract CAN propose an amendment to this contract by
> announcement. Once all parties have publicly consented to that
> amendment, then the person who proposed the amendment CAN cause this
> contract's text to be modified in the way specified originally by
> announcement.
>
> This contract CANNOT be destroyed if any person has assets in eir
> account.
>
> }
>
> --
> ATMunn
> friendly neighborhood notary here :)
>
