Roger Hicks on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:14:19 -0700 (MST)

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

Re: [s-d] [s-b] consultation 17

> Sorry if I stress this point, Agora did at the time have "binding
> agreements" and that was the basis of the Pinapple Partnership
> B does not contain this concept, from B's perspective Primo is just a
> group of people. It's charter has no worth or meaning to B.
> And this is a problem if there are players that are at the same time
> independent players and members of Primo.

A binding agreement is also commonly accepted in legal contexts. The
rules of B Nomic form a binding agreement among the players, for
example. The same issue is presently being debated there over my
attempted registration of Bob's Quality Cards, a partnership formed
under Colorado law. I do see you point, however. The water is muddied
a bit in B Nomic due to not having a binding agreement law (although
there is a faction in Agora that considers the current binding
agreement law to simply be a truism, and therefore unnecessary).

spoon-discuss mailing list