I think a cfj is frivolous in this case. Just write a fix proposal, or tell a player to submit one such proposal as you yourself cannot.
El 26 feb. 2018 19:00, "Kenyon Prater" <kprater3...@gmail.com> escribió: > 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. >
