On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 16:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote: > > It says "depends on", not "depends only on". If one or more factors > > is necessary to preserve the existence of an entity, and one of them > > is the contract, then its existence depends on the contract. > > And my dependents would survive without me but they *legally* depend > on me. It's a legal distinction. Sorry, I should have included that it > was the clear intent of the rule and discussed the legal ramifications > of dependencies and "depends on" in a legal context. That will take some > more scholarship. > > We can't use "depends only on" because nothing exists in a vacuum. But > we also shouldn't use "depends slightly on" (that's clearly outside the > bounds of intent). So I'm arguing for a "depends, primarily, in a legal > sense, due to delegation of authority". > > > That is to say, it's common usage to say "X's existence depends on Y" > > when there are things other than Y that might destroy X-- which is the > > case for nearly all entities other than the imaginary ones we > > manipulate in this nomic. > > Of course. All of Agora depends on email to exist. Contracts depend > on language. I agree with you that it doesn't mean that R1728 clause is > wholly broken because nothing exists in a vacuum.
The only places email is even mentioned in Agora's SLR are R2150 and R1727; if email were to suddenly cease to exist, we could, as non-person players who had been first-class once, continue playing until we could redefine ourselves as persons by changing the rules, using an alternative non-email forum. (Sending messages to /everyone/ might be quite hard, but certainly plausible; and as #really-a-cow showed, fora other than email are certainly workable. Also of note is, that when B stole Agora's ruleset, a typo in the proposal that did so lead to there being no public fora, but they managed to recover from that state.) -- ais523
