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 to
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 u
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 have
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 a
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:
>
> Wh
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
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 l
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
> ba
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 whol
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 tr
10 matches
Mail list logo
