ihope on Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:24:57 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Contract Law |
On 29/01/2008, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > My other point: BobTHJ, why go through the trouble of detailing > > consultations and oracularities procedures when you could just use the > > criminal system? (I can see one possible difference in that current criminal > > law wouldn't necessarily allow a punishment such as: m100 is transfered from > > Billy Pilgrim to Codae... but that could be handily fixed) > > > The criminal system simply imposes mack fines, which would doubtfully > truly enforce binding behavior in contracts. Why trust that anyone > will follow their obligations in a contract when they can simply get > out of it by paying a minimal fine? If instead a player is forced to > fulfill their contractual obligations as closely as possible due to > Oracularities remedying breach of contract then contracts suddenly > take on much more meaning. Well, there's nothing actually preventing a Priest from submitting an Oracularity that gives some higher punishment. I think I'll amend my proposal to "encourage" that. --Ivan Hope CXXVII _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss