On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 09:24 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Increase the power of Rule 2198 to 2.
>>>>
>>>> Amend Rule 2198 by prepending the following sentence to the
>>>> first paragraph:
>>>>
>>>> Contract changes are secured.
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> -Goethe
>>>>
>>> No good, a power-1 rule could simply force all parties to a contract to
>>> amend it by agreement of all parties, maybe even act on behalf of them
>>> to do it too.
>>
>> I don't see how a power=1 Rule could "force" an agreement that wouldn't
>> be in conflict with this rule (and thus this rule would trump it).
>> Can you give a more concrete example so I can poke holes in it?
>>
>> -Goethe
>>
> Not a real proposal (AI=1):
> Add a power-1 rule:
> {{{
> Goethe and ais523 SHALL modify the Harmless Little Contract to read
> "Anyone can act on behalf of any entity to this contract." as soon as
> possible when this rule is created; they shall re-incur this obligation
> if at any time the contract's text changes to anything other than that
> phrase. Any player can act on behalf of them to fulfil this obligation.
> }}}
>
> Probably rule 101 stops this being effective, though, but arguably it
> does much the same with respect to the PRS.
I see, I suppose this might work, but I wouldn't use this as an argument
against my fix, just as an argument for a second fix, to put the same
level of Security on "act on behalf of" Powers of Attorney (without that,
the above doesn't do much). Since I've noticed some movement on that
separately, that's the place to fix that.
In the meantime, I hope the anathema of forcing others into agreements
with the above sort of draconian proposal is strong enough to make this
one a tougher sell to pass than a simple "the contract is hereby amended"
proposal, even if the AI is still 1.
-Goethe
