On Tuesday 18 November 2008 02:46:42 am Alexander Smith wrote: > Pavitra wrote: > > ais523 wrote: > > > * There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which > > > the person was aware of or could easily have found out that an > > > attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made, and > > > could have ceased to agree to the document in question during > > > that time, with such ceasing to agree requiring no effort > > > beyond sending a message with no side-effects other than the > > > ceasing to agree itself. > > > > This would horribly break contracts that define assets whose > > ownership is restricted to parties. > > Ugh, probably a bug. It's an interesting question, though; if a > contract specifies horrible penalties for leaving if it's amended, > is that a good thing? Maybe we should relax this a bit at the risk > of allowing more Protection-racket-like mousetraps.
Legal contracts should have no guarantee of non-trappiness (the old Agoran custom, I think, is that you should know better than to agree to a buggy text), but Equitable contracts should have ample safeguards. > They don't, because the method by which a player agrees depends on > its current Enforceability. There isn't a mechanism to agree to > someone else's contract unless it specifically allows it, and even > Unbinding documents can restrict who can agree to them. So that > handles Enforceability. Spirit's deduced from the Enforceability > and the document's text (just like pledgeness used to be), so that > isn't a problem either. The point that isn't clear to me is this: can there exist two documents with different switch-states but identical texts?
