On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 14:50, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-06-07 at 14:44 +0000, James Cook wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 13:48, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I light a candle. > > > > Does this actually work? > > > > As far as I can tell, you agree that you perform those actions, but > > what power does a contract have beyond saying that you agreed that > > that's true? What makes it so, e.g, the Treasuror should think you > > did those actions? > > It's a contract-defined abbreviation. There's been some controversy > about those in the past, and I can't remember how it was resolved. > > However, G. quoted the definition of the abbreviation in the email > itself, which is sufficient to make it work (as, e.g., the Treasuror > need look only at the email to determine which action G. is taking). > It's like saying "for the purpose of this email, to 'nkep' someone > means to transfer 5 coins to them", followed by nkeppig a bunch of > people (which also works).
Thanks, that makes sense. I guess G.'s attempt works whether or not the contract exists, based on the quoting. While I'm on the topic, I'm confused about switches in contracts. D. Margaux's Church contract attempts to define switches (intended to work like offices) and the proto contract in Trigon's Arcadia tournament contract attempts to define a switch called Iteration Date. But R2162 says "A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch", and I don't see any rule saying that switches defined in contracts are switches. Is the idea that the parties to the contract should interpret the contract as if the switches exist, because they agreed to the contract?
