Re: [s-d] [s-b] hostile takeovers

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

The distinction is, party is the term in the rules, and member is the term
used to mean something else in the Sock Corp Contracts. BP is correct, the
distinction might not be recognized in other Contracts. I'm not sure either.

I don't see why 'joining' has any meaning, except that people think it does.
I suppose one could object to all these 'joinings' and make a big fuss.
Thanks for noticing the inconsistency.

On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Tyler wrote:
> > I think you may be a bit confused J. A member of a contract is not a
> party
> > to/of a contract. That is why you didn't become a Voting Sockholder of
> Black
> > Corporation when you became a member of its contract. That is also why
> > Wooble can be a member of his Corps without being a party to their
> > contracts.
> >
>
> I fail to see the distinction between "joining" a contract, "becoming a
> member" of a contract, or "becoming a party to" a contract.
>
> The rules only state: As a Game Action any Legal Entity may voluntarily
> become bound to a Contract unless the text of that contract would
> prohibit such an action.
>
> "Join" has been a B synonym for "voluntarily become bound", and I don't
> recall anyone ever using the latter language to become a party to any of
> the existing contracts.
>
> Looking over the docs again, I still fail to see a distinction between
> "party" and "member". Someone enlighten me.
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>



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