On 10/22/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> comex wrote:
> >I initiate an equity case with the rules as contract,
>
> You can't. The rules do not constitute a contract as defined by R1742,
> and so the initiation procedure defined by R2169 is not available.
> Although R2171 purports to treat the rules as a binding agreement,
> it doesn't actually even claim to make them a R1742 contract, and it
> can't anyway. R1742 (defining "contract") and R2169 (allowing equity
> cases for "contracts") have higher power.
It's not clear to me that R1742 and R2171 would be in conflict if
R2171 did claim to make the rules a contract.
> Rules of higher power still
> give the rules behaviour that is incompatible with them constituting a
> contract in the way that R2171 envisions.
To what rules and behavior are you referring?
Incidentally, is R2171 even necessary to consider the rules a contract?
Any group of two or more persons may make an agreement among
themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and
be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a
contract.
The set of players is a group of two or more persons, and by agreeing
to play the game, we agree to be bound and governed by the rules. So
how do the rules not consider themselves a contract?
-root
