Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 7/28/2019 1:03 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: That may be a reasonable point; I know that tends to be a weakness in my proposals, although I tried pretty hard not to do it in that one. Still, I'm not sure I see a much simpler codification of our existing precedents, especially given that it has

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:52 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 7/28/2019 12:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that > > provision I don't see how this could also be broken? > > > > Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 7/28/2019 12:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that > provision I don't see how this could also be broken? > > Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come up with a > list of changes that would be satisfactory? I won't

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 7/28/2019 12:21 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: What about the "For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by contract"? That pretty clearly says that if the contract species it, consent isn't necessary. The way you've written it makes it sound (to me

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that provision I don't see how this could also be broken? Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come up with a list of changes that would be satisfactory? -Aris On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:21 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
What about the "For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by contract"? That pretty clearly says that if the contract species it, consent isn't necessary. -Aris On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Actually, I think your proposal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
Actually, I think your proposal may be broken. If a contract (once created with 2 people) explicitly allows a third person to join without the consent of the existing parties, it's not clear if your proposed text overrides that or if "agreeing to the contract that allows other people to join

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
Okay, I agree that definitely sounds better in the long run. That being said, there isn't any reason to retract my proposal right now, so I'm not going to. -Aris On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:57 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so based on what we've found/discussed - I'll publish a proto tomorrow-ish. I don't think we can bolt on to the existing I think it's just better to do a complete re-write. Rough outline: - Better defines agreements as a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 1:25 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > 4. Any player CAN create a gift in eir possession by announcement. > > 5. A player CANNOT create a gift by any means. On further thought, this version might end up being IRRELEVANT. A judge might say "gifts are a contract currency entirely