Re: [s-b] [s-d] hostile takeovers

[Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I want to acknowledge that the piece of logic I was missing was buried 
in a historic version of the Black contract and on the mailing list. 
(Though it could be argued that Members of that contract are trying to 
be Game Objects when they're not entitled to that status - see the 
earlier thread about the Small Pointless Switch.)

But here's another point:

"If, at any time, a contract has less than one party, it ceases to be a 
Game Document."

Before I joined Black yesterday, there were SIX contracts with zero 
parties listed on the Business Ministry page.

These corporation contracts were formed by vote, not by player 
submission, so there were no automatic parties.

I challenge the Business public display: At least six of the sock 
corporations do not exist, and their corresponding game documents should 
be removed.

j


Tyler wrote:
> The distinction is, party is the term in the rules, and member is the term
> used to mean something else in the Sock Corp Contracts. BP is correct, the
> distinction might not be recognized in other Contracts. I'm not sure either.
>
> I don't see why 'joining' has any meaning, except that people think it does.
> I suppose one could object to all these 'joinings' and make a big fuss.
> Thanks for noticing the inconsistency.
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>   
>> Tyler wrote:
>>     
>>> I think you may be a bit confused J. A member of a contract is not a
>>>       
>> party
>>     
>>> to/of a contract. That is why you didn't become a Voting Sockholder of
>>>       
>> Black
>>     
>>> Corporation when you became a member of its contract. That is also why
>>> Wooble can be a member of his Corps without being a party to their
>>> contracts.
>>>
>>>       
>> I fail to see the distinction between "joining" a contract, "becoming a
>> member" of a contract, or "becoming a party to" a contract.
>>
>> The rules only state: As a Game Action any Legal Entity may voluntarily
>> become bound to a Contract unless the text of that contract would
>> prohibit such an action.
>>
>> "Join" has been a B synonym for "voluntarily become bound", and I don't
>> recall anyone ever using the latter language to become a party to any of
>> the existing contracts.
>>
>> Looking over the docs again, I still fail to see a distinction between
>> "party" and "member". Someone enlighten me.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> spoon-discuss mailing list
>> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   

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