Re: [s-d] [s-b] Inflationary Language

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 4E70 explicitly permits (even requires) Corporations to create Game
> Objects: "A Legal Entity, as a Game Action, may create a Game Document
> known as a Contract."


4E70 DOES permit the creation of Game Documents (a type of Game ObjecT) by
Legal Entities. Corporations are Legal Entities, yes. I don't think 4E70
REQUIRES Corporations to create Game Objects, however. Billy Pilgrim once
created a Game Document to start up BP First Bank of Switzerland. First Bank
had no role in the Document's creation. It was merely its spawn.


> There is no provision to limit Legal Entities to
> creating just this sub-class of Game Object, nor is there any provision
> in the rules to make Points a different flavor of object from other Game
> Objects that would make them somehow unmintable.Points are created
> other places than 4E19, for instance tidiness list payment. I have a
> proposal pending that disallows the creation of points outside explicit
> rules.


There IS just such a provision, in fact. It's in Rule 4E2. "Game Objects can
only be created, destroyed, or modified if allowed by the Rules, in a manner
explicitly governed by the Rules." We went over this entire debate several
months ago, when there was a Ministry of Goods whose Minister, the Artisan,
was allowed by the Rules to create Blueprints for Devices. Other Players
suddenly started trying to create Blueprints and even Devices that were
tremendously overpowered. Their rationale: the rules don't say I can't. I
can't remember exactly, but 4E2 either blocked that or the cited passage was
added to it as a response to this type of attempt. The moral of this story
is that just because the Artisan could create Blueprints, does not mean
another random Player also could. Likewise, just because a Corporation can
create Game Documents, which are a type of Game Object, does not mean it can
create other types of Game Objects willy nilly (and any argument that it
creates Officers and Members and whatnot fails to destroy my point, since I
don't think designating someone an "Officer" amounts to creating anything
outside the scope of the Contract). This all is just another instance of the
old "I Say I Did Therefore I Did" scam and ensuing discussion. Only this
time, we have an actual Rule there to block the scam.

That said, I do plan to vote FOR the proposal to allow for Contract Objects
that are limited in scope to the inside of a Contract.

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