We could use a deposit system like when you deposit for rent. On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 9:08 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
> > Aris, > > The more I think about it, the more I think that a judge should throw it > out. Contracts are made under the intent that they are binding under the > rules. If a rule specifically says that a contract can't do X, the parties > to the contract have agreed that the rules say the contract doesn't have > that authority. > > How about another example: if a contract said that a person was bound to a > contract without their consent? You might say "well, the contract can > apply > contract penalties and pretend that a person is a member, as long as Agora > doesn't get involved." But then, let's say I'm a legit member, I could say > "the fact that that person is considered bound to the contract violates my > own position in the contract, and I agreed that Agora is the authority in > these matters". > > -G. > > On 2/16/2019 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Well, it's unclear to me if a judge would say "that office works just > like > > you would expect except the ADoP doesn't have to track it" or "contracts > > can't do that, so those clauses are void". IMO it's just worth a little > > precaution with an easily-added clause (eg. when contracts didn't have > mint > > authority, we used to use "a Qurrency is the same as a currency but just > for > > the contract" or something specific like that). > > > > On 2/16/2019 10:58 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> I believe that under long-standing contract construction rules, > contracts > >> can pretend that they can do rule things even if the rules don’t think > so. > >> The effect is that the contract behaves as closely as possible to the > way > >> in which it would were it a rule. > >> > >> -Aris > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 10:24 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> I think the proposed fix to Telnaior's scam includes an amendment such > that > >>> offices can only be defined by the Rules. > >>> > >>> On 2/16/2019 10:15 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > >>>> We must ensure that the Ritual is appeased. I therefore humbly submit > to > >>> the Agoran public this proto contract: > >>>> > >>>> /// > >>>> > >>>> This contract is to be known as The Church of The Ritual. Parties to > the > >>> contract are the faithful; nonparties are heathens. A player can become > >>> faithful by announcement upon transferring 5 coins to the Church; a > player > >>> can become heathen by announcement. > >>>> > >>>> The priest and the heretic are imposed offices. The player who first > >>> performs The Ritual in any given Agoran week becomes the priest (if > >>> faithful) or the heretic (if a heathen). At the start of each Agoran > week, > >>> the offices of priest and heretic are made vacant. > >>>> > >>>> The faithful MUST prevent all players from becoming the heretic; > failure > >>> to do so is the crime of Abetting Heresy. > >>>> > >>>> The heretic MUST be shunned. The priest SHOULD be treated right good. > >>>> > >>>> Upon being installed in the office of priest, a faithful CAN once > cause > >>> the Church to transfer to em 5 coins. > >>>> > >>>> If the Church has fewer than 10 coins, any faithful CAN once call a > >>> collection by announcement. When a collection is called, the faithful > MUST > >>> in a timely fashion transfer to the Church a sum of coins equal to 5 / > X, > >>> rounded up to the nearest coin, where X is the number of faithful. > >>>> > >>> >
