On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, comex wrote: > I disagree with your arguments fundamentally-- I think that > contracts=agreements are primordial entities whose intrinsic scope is > equal to the Rules'; the Rules merely recognize them and bless them > with certain properties. Without an explicit clause to the contrary > (which is only effective because Agoran contracts must agree to be > governed by the Rules), there is no reason that contracts can't manage > their internal state however they want.
If this were all about internal state I would agree with you, but it's about determining the value of the "certain properties" that Agora grants. To that end, if a contract cannot communicate its internal state to Agora, its the same as a player not being able to communicate eir state to Agora. In support of this, for example, why would a contract who happens to be a player (e.g. a partnership) have an ability to set up a paradox where a first-class player on eir own can't? Basically, it's because I agree with your premise that I disagree with your conclusions. If contracts are primordial entities, then their interaction with agora is not as an intrinsic extension of Agoran Rules, but in how they as independent entities "communicate with" Agora, and thus rules of generally unclear communications may be applied. -Goethe
