On 5/8/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please be very specific on the following: If other rules (or contracts)
forbid certain transfers, are the NoTs "valid" (transfer happens but
breaks a rule) or "invalid" (transfers never happens).
The legality of a transfer has no bearing on the validity of a Notice
of Transfer. Validity is defined by the second sentence of the rule,
which reads:
Such a notice is
valid as long as:
(a) the notice explictly names one or more entities as Goods;
(b) the Donor is the owner of each of the Goods;
(c) the notice identifies by name or nickname the Recipient; and
(d) either the notice is published by the Donor, or the notice
is published by an officer explicitly required by the rules
to publish the notice.
It seems that these days people want illegal actions to be impossible
to perform. I don't understand why. They are distinct concepts.
Comparing between
2001-era currencies (pragmatic: it happens) and 2005-era cards (platonic:
it never happened), both are messy in their own way, but pragmatic is much
less messy as it requires less rewinding of the game state.
We should eliminate the idea of ``game state''. It only causes trouble.
I'd suggest a second sentence after the above: "This Rule sets all
requirements for a NoT to be considered valid; if a specific
transfer or NoT would break other rules, that transfer is still
valid (but possibly illegal). This rule takes precedence over rules
governing transfers."
I think that that sentence is too specific for one type of notice, but
could be worth including in a rule describing how to regulate validity
of notices. I have an old proto on notices which I may dust off.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
We could really cut down on unnecessary duplication by having the
Speaker do everything. :)
-- Kelly, in agora-discussion
