On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:20:07PM -0400, comex wrote: > On Monday 18 June 2007, Ian Kelly wrote: > > Doesn't play nicely with Limited Partnerships, Take Fifteen, unless > > the Protectorate also happens to be a Partnership (in which case it > > allegedly can register anyway) -- both because it's not a Partnership > > itself and because it screws up the recursive definition of basis for > > Partnerships of which the Protectorate is a member. It would be much > > more elegant to come up with a definition of Agreements / Partnerships > > such that Protectorates are naturally a subclass of Partnerships. > > That way, anything that applies to Partnerships automatically applies > > to Protectorates as well. > > The point of this is to create a parallel method for non-natural persons to > exist. The influence of Agoran law on them is limited (R2147) but any > four players can cause a Protectorate to be deregistered for 30 days > (R869). Of course this is completely pointless if CFJ 1687 is judged > TRUE.
I don't think a parallel method is really necessary. It shouldn't be too hard to alter a Protectorate's (or indeed, any other nomic's) ruleset to qualify as an agreement under agoran law, then register it as a limited partnership - and indeed, this was the original idea I had for B Nomic.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
