Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition Exploration (PftPoPDE)

[Kerim Aydin <kerim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009, Charles Walker wrote:
> 2009/11/1 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> The rules don't define plenty of things which exist happily within B.
>>
>> Such as?
>
> We no longer have a definition of personhood, yet we still exist and
> interact with the platonic gamestate happily enough. One big example
> from Agora is acting on behalf- that was considered to work for ages
> before they legislated it formally.

Not quite.  When it was first attempted in the modern era, it was CFJed 
and *judged* to work.  So it existed due to formal precedent for a while 
before it was decided it needed more regulation.  Precedent is part of 
rules.

That being said, you could probably here set a precedent that "contracts"
could exist here happily in the same way.  But it's nonobvious until it
is so mooted.

-Goethe.



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