> On Nov 7, 2017, at 10:36 PM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:34 PM Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote: > >> Pledges are fixed assets (r. 2450, “Pledges”) and therefore cannot be >> transferred (r. 2166, “Assets”). >> >> -o > > Did you read the surrounding discussion?
No, just the rules. I generally read public lists first (oldest-first) before reading a-d (newest-first). It’s not clear to me that the suggested ambiguity is sufficient to render a fixed asset transferrable, though. Maybe I’m dense, but the relevant clauses > Pledges are an indestructible fixed asset. and > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by announcement by > its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its backing document. > A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT be > transferred; any other asset is liquid. combine fairly clearly. If the correct interpretation of Assets turns out to be "only a contract can be a backing document", then Pledges have not been defined to exist (and therefore likely _don’t_ exist) since the Contracts v8 proposal passed. In that case, they still can’t be transferred meaningfully, since they’re an unregulated bit of ephemera rather than true game state. As of the adoption of that proposal, all pledges effectively ceased to exist, and no meaningful pledges can be created, since all of the meaningful actions in r. 2450 are in terms of Asset actions. What am I missing? -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
