Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Without Objection

["Mike McGann" <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> but any subset
> of the rules does. Sock market class action lawsuit, anyone?

Yes, but the key difference is that Rules are enacted by a vote of a
majority of Players. If that is the will of B, so be it.

I have no problems with contracts when used for their intended use.
The Articles of Pancake, in my opinion, overstepped that. It was an
attempt to create a mini-inter-nomic. If there is interest in doing
that kind of thing, it can be enacted by modifying the ruleset. I
don't like the "let's make a rule but since I probably won't get
enough support for it I'll make it a contract instead" kind of thing.

I objected to the Gold Trust contract because it manages state that is
not enforceable by the Rules of B. The League for Sane B-Chess was a
good stop-gap measure but it has outlived it use--if there is interest
in not turning the field more than once an rday, it should be proposed
as a rule change. Actually, I might just do that.

Looking at the Contracts page, the only contract that I would consider
to be for the intended use is the "Codae's Rapier Rental Agency".

Of course, this is a game and we are here for fun--my opinions and
beliefs are meaningless unless it convinces others to do something
that I agree with :-)

- Hose
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss