Re: [s-d] [s-b] Inflationary Language

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> > 4E70 DOES permit the creation of Game Documents (a type of Game ObjecT)
> by
> > Legal Entities. Corporations are Legal Entities, yes. I don't think 4E70
> > REQUIRES Corporations to create Game Objects, however. Billy Pilgrim once
> > created a Game Document to start up BP First Bank of Switzerland. First
> Bank
> > had no role in the Document's creation. It was merely its spawn.
> >
> >
> Minor point: a Corporation can create other Corporation, and in doing so
> IS required to create a Game Document.


True. But no corporation is required to create another corporation. But
anyway, I think this part of the debate is a) beside the point and b) all a
matter of semantics. So I shall stop here.

>
> > This all is just another instance of the
> > old "I Say I Did Therefore I Did" scam and ensuing discussion. Only this
> > time, we have an actual Rule there to block the scam.
> >
> > That said, I do plan to vote FOR the proposal to allow for Contract
> Objects
> > that are limited in scope to the inside of a Contract.
> >
> I'm still not convinced the hole is plugged and I appreciate your
> support of that proposal.


Where exactly is the unplugged hole?

And yes, I'm all for shoring up the structure of them. Can never have too
many safeguards...

And in response to the next post, I even think I remember B having an
"anything not illegal is permitted" clause at some point. Which quickly grew
to be unmanageable and IIRC led to lots of contested dictatorships.

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