bd on 20 Sep 2002 18:36:04 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 22 VOTING RESULTS |
On Thursday 19 September 2002 09:20 pm, Wonko wrote: > Quoth bd, > > > On Thursday 19 September 2002 05:53 pm, Wonko wrote: > >> As for the first, the existing rule does not say that going public is a > >> prerequisite for existence of Stocks, it only says that going public > >> creates stocks. That doesn't affect stocks that already exist. > > > > CFIs don't have to be true. They just have to be *ruled* TRUE. :-P > > > >> So how about I do this: I issue a proposal to give me the hundred thou, > >> I don't use my shareholder power except to push that proposal through > >> (and maybe one or two of my other ones? ;), and, as part of the > >> proposal, I dispose of all my shares? I'd basically be just using > >> Glotmorf's proposal to undo the damage done to my by Glotmorf's > >> proposal. Does that sound fair? > > > > How about someone says TRUE to my CFI? That fixes things nicely, even > > though it is a perversion of the judicial system :) > > 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. Mmm? Well, the interpretation is ambiguous, and we'd have to use a CFI to overturn the CFI... -- bd "This is the kind of castle King Arthur would have lived in... if he were a fiddler crab." -Fry _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss