On 2/16/2019 12:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> 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.
If Telnaior's prop
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
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
On 2/16/2019 12:11 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
We could use a deposit system like when you deposit for rent.
Oh I think D. Margaux's fix does the job; I was responding to Aris's more
general statement that "under long-standing contract construction rules,
contracts can pretend that they can do rul
We could use a deposit system like when you deposit for rent.
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 9:08 PM Kerim Aydin 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
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'
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 min
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 K
I'm interested👌
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 7:26 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> Thanks—if there’s any interest in this, we can fix that for sure.
>
> > On Feb 16, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think the proposed fix to Telnaior's scam includes an amendment such
> that
> > offices can
Thanks—if there’s any interest in this, we can fix that for sure.
> On Feb 16, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin 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
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
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 tra
12 matches
Mail list logo
