I wasn't sure if it was appropriate to CFJ this or if this was a matter I
could just ask the public about. In the future for something like this,
should I just ask?
Kenyon
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:54 PM
Subject: Facilities owned by contracts incur no costs
To: agora-business-requ...@agoranomic.org
If I am a player, I free-CFJ:
If a player owns land with a production or processing facility on it,
and transfers that land from
emself to a contract, no upkeep costs will be incurred and the facility
will not be destroyed.
Arguments:
"Facilities" as specified in Proposal 8014 specifies that facilities are
liquid assets, which by Rule 2166/25 "Assets", means that they can be
transfered. Furthermore, "Unless modified by an asset's backing document,
ownership of an asset is restricted to Agora, players, and contracts." And
since facilities, established in "Facilities", does not specify that
contracts cannot own facilities, they can own facilities.
Furthermore "Facilities" specifies that "If the ownership of the Parent
Land Unit of a Facilty is changed, that facility is transferred along with
it." Since Rule 1993/1 specifies that "Land belonging to a contract is
called Communal Land", it is clear that contracts can own land, and thus
can own facilities built upon them.
In "Facilities", the relevant text to upkeep is "If a player owns any
facilities with upkeep costs, e must pay them before the first day of the
next Agoran month. Failing to do this destroys the facility." Contracts are
not players, so they cannot be included in the list of players with
facilities with upkeep costs. Since it doesn't apply, a contract has
nothing to "fail to do", and so a facility would not be destroyed.
Not trying to use this, but if it is indeed the case, I'd like to make sure
it gets amended soon so it can't be exploited.
