On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 7:41 PM Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
> > > 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 The idea is that they would be assets, but not have a backing document. I have some trouble believing it myself, but when V.J. Rada posted I wanted to make sure I stopped scams before anyone scammed it. I don't know as much about punctuation and the like as others do, and it's believable that there was a missing comma or something, so the parenthetical definition of backing document would apply only to the last item of the list. We've since agreed that it's probably ambiguous, and should thus be decided by common sense. -Aris >
