That got sent before I had a chance to proofread it; my apologies for the embarrassingly large number of spelling mistakes.
-Aris On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 12:36 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that’s incorrect. Unless the rules explicitly say “the contract > can’t punish someone for X”, he meaning of a statement on the part of the > rules that a person can’t be considered bound to a contract is that the > rules won’t consider them bound. Contracts can have their own subjective > opinions, which can differ from those of the rules. Consider this: a > contract can always say “Person X is not a part to this contract, but all > further provisions of this contract shall operate as if e were”. Likewise, > the contract can do the same for an office, or any other legal device. > Allow contracts to do that without explicitly writing it out doesn’t make > them any more powerful, it just provides shorthand. > > -Aris > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 12:08 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. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >
