On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > happen. Rule 2169 is more powerful than it is, explaining that if > a group of players could do something by emselves (and it is > possible for a player to create a contest by emself, in fact > failing requires other players to object, which involves more > players) and that something creates a contract, then that contract > is a legal outcome for an equity case.
It doesn't allow the equation to be the result of any arbitrary game actions the group of players could take, it only allows it to be an agreement they could make. An arbitrary set of players can't make an agreement that is at the time of the agreement a contest; they can only make an agreement with the intention that it become a contest and then take a separate, non-agreement action which causes it to become a contest. I think accepting your logic would imply that an equation can make any arbitrary change to the gamestate, since a parties to a contract could agree to some arbitrary other contract and then incidentally go on to take actions causing such changes, even if doing so would require changing the rules and convincing other people to help them do so. Even if no actual other player would consent to vote for the rule changes they wanted, surely it's "possible" that under some hypothetical scenario any arbitrary gamestate change could be made, given enough persistence and ingenuity on the part of some party to a contact somewhere. --Wooble
