On Mon, 25 Apr 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
If a promise is owned by the Tree, then its author CAN transfer
or destroy it with notice.
If someone can destroy their own pledge, it no longer functions as
a pledge. You are removing a fundamental design feature.
-G.
On 11-04-25 06:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If someone can destroy their own pledge, it no longer functions as
a pledge. You are removing a fundamental design feature.
-G.
This is only for a unilateral promise (one that is open to everyone) and
the requirement of notice ensure that it can't be
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 11-04-25 06:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
If someone can destroy their own pledge, it no longer functions as
a pledge. You are removing a fundamental design feature.
-G.
This is only for a unilateral promise (one that is open to everyone) and the
On 11-04-25 06:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
That is insufficient. If someone wants to make a campaign pledge I promise
to do X if elected then can revoke the promise 4 days later, it ceases to
function. Pledges were by far the most common and useful sort of contract
we used to have, so default
G. wrote:
Does this simple proto do what you want while leaving ongoing
promises as the default method?
Proto: Nullification Clauses
Amend Promise Rule by appending:
If a Condition of a promise is labeled as a Nullification
Condition, then its author or Horton CAN destroy the
On 11-04-25 08:38 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
Unrelated: why hasn't anyone published a ruleset since March 3?
No Rulekeepor.
6 matches
Mail list logo
