Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Contract Automation

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think this is all right, except that we should probably first (or
simultaneously) put some kind of limitations on the creation of Contracts.
The MoB is already overloaded with all those recursive Contracts you created
+ destroyed, j.

When I tried to make j a slave to Black Corporation, I couldn't figure out
how to ensure that he would actually DO the actions Black required of him. I
used the word 'shall' to try to at least give him a m50 penalty for not
doing it. I think Contracts being 'binding' ought to be defined more
explicitly somehow.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:39 AM, ais523 <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 02:22 -0700, Jay Campbell wrote:
> > I submit this proposal entitled "Contract Automation":
> >
> > {
> >
> > Prepend to the third paragraph of 4e70 Contracts:
> >
> > {{ When a Player becomes obligated to perform an unambiguous Game Action
> > by a Contract, that Game Action is performed as if the Player had sent
> > it to the public forum. }}
> >
> > }
> This will almost certainly destroy B. Go for it!
>
> (By the way, if this passes, I intend to write a contract which makes B
> Nomic Turing-complete, and then use it to solve the Riemann Hypothesis
> via brute-forcing imaginary actions in a way that affects a Public
> Display.)
> --
> ais523
> _______________________________________________
> 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