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