And it's a good thing, otherwise Agora might have been in some serious trouble.
That is, until someone proposed a fix and all was well.
On 11/7/2017 9:14 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
Yeah, and no judge will choose the dumb option over the non-dumb
option, so I think we can all just agree that assets work, and that
lists are silly.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it's probably ambiguous enough to apply common sense.
-Aris
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:09 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose as a counter point you could have a sentence that says "this
is an agreement between Jeff, Johnny, Jackson, Jolene, and Jacqueline
(hereafter 'Parties'). Obviously Jeff's a party.
And I suppose it's like "A contract is an entity defined as such by
one of these things, hereafter its backing document". It does work, it
looks like I was just tricked mercilessly by embedded lists. Let that
be a lesson to you all.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 1:02 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Surely the parenthetical refers to the last item in the list. I mean,
if it were another modifying clause (eg: I need a fruit, a vegetable,
an omnibus or a piece of chocolate, which must be yellow), it would
only refer to the last item in the list. Or in a sentence like "My
name is Jeff, I wear a hat, sunglasses, a watch, and trousers (which
are yellow), that would surely refer to the trousers, not his whole
attire.
On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 20:39 VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
From rule 2166, "Assets"
"An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b) authorized
regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized regulations (but if
such regulations modify a preexisting asset class defined by a rule or
another title of regulations, they must be authorized specifically to
do so by their parent rule), or (d) contract (hereafter its backing
document)"
It is clear that a backing document is only a contract from the way
the rule is written. This was clearly just added in a non-careful way,
but textually, a contract is a backing document and nothing else is.
Therefore, there's no recordkeepor because "The recordkeepor of a
class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound
by, its backing document.". A rule of lower power defines the
Treasuror as the recordkeepor for shinies, but that must defer to this
higher power rule.
I don't think that this is clear at all. There is no grammatical rule that
forces the referent of the parenthetical to be one element of the list
rather than the rest of the list, and the rest of the rule is, as you have
observed, largely nonsensical without it.
-Alexis
--
From V.J. Rada
--
From V.J. Rada
