Geoffrey Spear on Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:41:22 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] [s-d] New Contract

On Feb 11, 2008 4:54 PM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2008 1:33 PM, Charles Schaefer <chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I submit the following consultation:
> >
> > "At the time of submission of this consultation, is the player named Charles
> > a party to the contract titled "Win By Paradox"?
> >
> > Reasoning:
> >
> > >From Rule 4E70: "As a Game Action a Player may create a Game Document known
> > as a Contract. Upon doing so that player becomes bound by that Contract."
> >
> > Ever since first becoming bound by the contract, I have been caught in an
> > infinite loop.
> >
> > I recommend an answer of PARADOX and an oracularity abolishing this
> > contract.
> This is Consultation #113. I assign it to Priest Wooble.

I answer NO, for the reasons I laid out earlier, namely that a
Contract only has the power to create a means for parties to leave,
and cannot cause players to become parties by its own authority.

I don't believe an Oracularity is necessary, although a proposal to
cause contacts with no parties to automatically dissolve so the MoB
doesn't have to track them indefinitely would be welcomed, I think.
spoon-business mailing list