> On Jul 9, 2017, at 8:53 PM, CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Via "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner > to another entity by announcement", I announce that I transfer all assets to > myself.
Absent a CFJ to the contrary, I see no way this can possibly work as evidently intended. There’s a fair degree of practice and precedent around “generally” clauses already. Rule 105 (“Rule Changes”), for example, allows instruments to “generally” amend the text of a rule - but there’s no dispute that rule 1030 (“Precedence between Rules”) restricts instruments from amending rules if such an amendment would allow a rule to directly take precedence over rule 1030 for the purposes of determining rule precedence, or that rule 1689 (“Agora Is A Nomic”) prevents an instrument from causing Agora to become ossified by amending a rule. These are long-standing norms and necessary safety features to keep poorly-considered rule changes from completely stalling the game. Thus, I shall, for the purposes of the offices I hold, record the actions in Cuddlebeam's message in the following manner: * e created a proposal. * e paid all of eir shinies (I believe the amount to be 18, but hold for the report) to pend it. * e created a second proposal. * e paid zero shinies, and presumably failed to pend it. * e destroyed any destructible assets e holds. I believe there are no such assets. If there is a contrary CFJ, then I’ll mark the appropriate report entries as provisional in future reports until the CFJ is resolved, then publish future reports following the result of the CFJ, as normal. I’m not interested in starting this CFJ, unless someone feels like supporting Cuddlebeam’s interpretation of the rules - in which case, if you beat me to it, please enter this message in evidence! -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
