Re: [s-d] [s-b] How do you counter ninjas?

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

comex wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> As an officer of CPA, the Contract of Epimenides, and cSC, I cause all
>> of them to become bound by "teucer's mack heist". I then act on behalf
>> of all of them to cause each one to give me all of its mackerel as is
>> required by their membership in teucer's mack heist.
> 
> What's the point of the contract?  Either you can act on behalf of a
> corp (as with these contracts), in which case you don't need a mack
> heist corp, or you can't, in which case obligating the corp to give
> you macks won't change the situation.

Not sure about TMH; teucer will have to comment on that one.

The point of CPA was to obligate the corp, thus triggering its officers'
collective obligation to make the corp meet its obligations (4E79).  I
figured it would be blocked via Oracularity; what I didn't foresee was

  1) The need to prohibit its officers from making it do things other
     than give its stuff to the Pirates.  Obviously.

  2) Whoever came up with "here's a new corp that both requires and
     prohibits officers to make it give, thus any action or inaction
     is equally lawful".  Contrast Agora's "EXCUSED, appropriate if
     the defendant could not reasonably avoid breaching the rules in
     a manner *at least as serious as that alleged*" (emphasis added),
     which would presumably decline to excuse breaking two requirements
     on the grounds that the alternative was breaking only one.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss