On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2008, at 23:32, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Unless of course you'd rather the courts stayed out of your private
>> affairs, in which case this is part of the full implications that you
>> weigh when not doing something that you SHOULD.
>
> It was created in Agora. It is bound by the rules of Agora.
Seriously though, there are lots of good reasons for having a private
contract truly private but bound by the rules of Agora. And that
indeed is still legal. Good reason:
1. I come up with an Agoran coup, power play, etc. Legitimate
play.
2. Doing so would require several members acting in concert with
quick timing.
3. Act must be secret, any leaks early and it all falls apart.
Problem: How do you "trust" fellow conspirators?
Solution: Write a contract that is "secret" but that if revealed,
would penalize the revealer. This means that, if the plan works, the
contract need never come out. If it fails due to a leak, the leaker
can be penalized by the Rules of Agora. Enforced trust.
Of course, this means you subscribe to the idea that said scams,
conspiracies, power-plays are a worthwhile part of the game (I do
in fact believe they are). It can be minor even, an agreement to
trade currencies in a certain way to help towards a win, etc.
It also means that "fishing expeditions" led by non-members armed
with the potential name of a contract (but nothing more) should be
discouraged by the Rules lest the means become a burden. I hope the
current case does so discourage.
Several pre-current-contract rules power plays were hatched in this
manner. The re-write of the "current Rules" to present form of
allowing private contracts at all kept this possibility. I personally
disagree with the "SHOULD inform the notary" clause for this reason,
but at least reasons 1-3 above should be enough that the members have
"considered the full implications" for not doing something that they
SHOULD.
-Goethe
