On 5/29/08, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I understand the events of CFJs 1942 & 1943, ehird is still trying to > extend duality to comex (in CFJ 1942, at least). The Ducks & Platypuses > agreement appears to me to be self-contradictory, but that's its own > business. I'm inclined to rule innocent in 1942, letting comex off the > hook, and guilty in 1943, with some appropriate fish-slapping for ehird.
I'm afraid there are no hidden motives to Ducks & Platypuses. ehird proposed (in #ircnomic) creating an agreement which would put em into an inescapable violation of the Rules. I suggested that, while e might leave the contract without objection if it were a pledge (e might reasonably be expected to get no objections), if I were a party who would infringe upon the contract by leaving it, e could not reasonably expect me to agree to dissolving the contract and e really would have no mechanism of leaving the contract. At this point I was under the impression that I would not be violating the proposed contract by remaining in it. When I realized that that would not be the case: [08:26:59] ehird: about to send to agora-business with subject 'Ducks & platypuses' unless any objections in 10 [08:27:00] comex: wait [08:27:01] ehird: 9 [08:27:03] ehird: 8 [08:27:04] comex: I just realized [08:27:05] ehird: 7 [08:27:07] ehird: comex: what [08:27:07] comex: that would make me in violation too :( [08:27:13] ehird: comex: yeah well [08:27:15] ehird: gotta roll with it [08:27:20] comex: oh, fine [08:27:21] ehird: you said you'd join [08:27:23] ehird: gonna back out? [08:27:25] comex: I blame you if I get exiled [08:27:27] ehird: sure This has nothing to do with Duality. Considering that ehird was a new player and I am not, it should be preferrable to punish me rather than ehird. (Although I will indeed blame him if I am exiled or fishslapped.) Of note, there is still no good way for us to destroy the contract.
