Just a heads up to everyone: I’m traveling at the moment, so the report
will be delayed. I was hoping to finish it up quickly today, but I had less
time than I thought I would and people keep creating tons of uproposals.
So, I’ll try to get it out as soon as I can, but that may take a bit.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 7:18 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmm... that sounds like a use case for single-party contracts. If
> there's a reason to disallow such contracts, I'll withdraw the following
> proposal (not a pledge).
>
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Single-party Contracts
>
> Author: Jason Cobb
>
> AI: 2.5
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") by replacing the text "Any group of two or
> more" with the text "Any group of one or more".
>
> }
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/14/19 5:05 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 14, 2019, at 12:02 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> After pondering on it I'm likely going to vote against it - the stakes
> are
> >> too high. I don't think it's reasonable to be able to steal all of
> >> someone's assets via minor inattention.
> > Well, under the current rules, players can protect their assets by using
> contract-created banks...
>
