Ed Murphy on Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:24:44 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-b] Consultation 203

ehird wrote:

> On 26 Jan 2009, at 15:54, James Baxter wrote:
>> Consultation 203 is: Rule 5e57 exists
>> I answer Consultation 203 YES.
>> Reasoning: {ais523 failed to change the contract as nothing gave  
>> him the power to change the Rules. Since the Rules specified were  
>> not destroyed, ais523 could not change the contract. If ais523 had  
>> submitted a Tweak and activated it, that would have been allowed.  
>> If ais523 had submitted a proposal which passed, that would have  
>> been allowed.
>> To summarize: ais523 cannot change the gamestate like that (at  
>> least I don't think so - this is dependent upon Consultation 198  
>> becoming pondered with an answer of NO).}
> INCONSISTENT, you didn't even consider the scam.

As usual, you can't make a claim because you're the supplicant.

I find the claim CONSISTENT.  Just because 5E57 evaluates to "Contract
X may be modified by modifying Rule Y" doesn't imply that you can
modify Rule Y, only that *if* you manage to modify Rule Y then you
thereby also modify Contract X.

spoon-business mailing list