Glotmorf on 20 Sep 2002 03:08:03 -0000


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

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 22 VOTING RESULTS


On 9/19/02 at 11:02 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 9/19/02 at 9:20 PM Wonko wrote:
>>
>>> Except it will fail. For the same reason Uin's old "I and the judge of
>this
>>> proposal can change the gamestate at will" CFI failed. Regardless of how
>>> it's judged. CFI's can't contradict something which is true.
>>
>> Theoretically, CFIs can *define* what's true.
>>
>> Let's try it a bit differently...
>>
>> I create the following CFI:
>>
>> Statement: Player stocks allegedly in existence prior to the creation of
>Rule
>> 946/3 do not in fact exist.
>>
>> Analysis: Rule 946/3, subsection C.2, dictates the process whereby player
>> stocks are created and destroyed.  This effectively regulates the
>existence of
>> what is currently known as player stocks.  As this process was not
>followed to
>> create any player stocks prior to the existence of Rule 946/3, no player
>> stocks could be in existence as of the creation of Rule 946/3.
>
>That's a violation of the retroactivity clause - r946/3 wasn't in effect
>when I bought the stock, thus it doesn't apply to stock created beforehand.

If r946/3 doesn't apply to stock created before it was, then stock created before it was doesn't have shareholder voting privilege.  Nor can it be sold to the bank.  Nor does it prevent players from going public with stock that has shareholder voting privilege.

Either way, your alleged stock has no authority.

						Glotmorf


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