Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Contractually-scoped Objects

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

There seem to be 2 mistakes, but not serious ones, with this proposal:
1- The first sentence gives the message that Contracts can create Game
Objects other than as defined by the Rules. (Notwithstanding it's assertion
that they don't exist outside of the scope of the Contract.) Contracts
cannot create Game Objects at all, if I remember correctly.
2- The second sentence gives the message that Contracts can create Socks!
Only Corporations can.

I'm thinking I won't support this, not for the reasons above, but because I
don't see that it changes anything, and the less rules, and the neater, the
better. I think the Rules on Contracts and Corporations are well-defined as
they are. I suspect that the problem may lie in the misconceptions caused by
the wording of Black's Contract, and perhaps Blue's as well.

On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> I submit this proposed addition to 4E70: Contracts
>
> {{
>
> Game Objects created by a Contract exist only within the scope of that
> Contract. Contracts and Corporations may not create Points, Macks, or
> any other Game Object defined by the Rules, except Socks and other
> explicit exceptions.
>
> }}
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-business mailing list
> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>



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