I don’t like this because I like the usability for private contracts and
the lack of need for the explicit “pledge” term.
The explicit "pledge" term could be "intent to make a pledge" instead. I
can think of at least one example ("outside the statute of limitations" as
it were) in which I promised to do something, with no intent, and then did
not do it. Don't want people to be caught.
The second thing is because if "publicly-made" (you're right, the spelling
of that word is one I'm not great at) pledges can pledge to do something
privately communicated under the latest CFJ I think that circumvents the
rule's intent. Obviously if that's fine as a matter of policy it's fine as
a matter of policy.
Honestly I just want to spend five shinies with great speed.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:26 AM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "V.J Rada" <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Also I need to spend my money before it gets blanked for value.
>
> Title: Pledges, again.
> Amend rule whatever "Pledges" by adding at the end
> {{{
> No message shall be construed as a pledge unless it contains the word
> "pledge".
> A pledge is "publically made" only if the full effect of the pledge is
> public and
> understandable by all players at the inception of the pledge.
> }}}
>
> y/n? better way to say it?
>
> Also will take ideas on how to fix loopholes to spend my other five
> shinies for
> _VALUE_.
>
>
> I would recommend spelling "publicly" correctly if closing loopholes is
> your goal. Also I'm not sure the second sentence is really necessary. A
> pledge can only compel the person who makes it to do it, so idk why it
> matters if anyone else really understands. Plus pledges that aren't in
> public forums and actions that are not comprehensible have no effect on the
> gamestate.
>
>
> -grok
>
