Sounds good, thanks. On Feb 26, 2018 6:21 PM, "Reuben Staley" <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > > >
