Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposal: Enough already

[Jay Campbell <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Being bound by contracts is risky business. I certainly wouldn't want to 
be bound (again) to the current sock corporation charters.

Besides, the below doesn't help much, witness my Ninja series of 
self-officered corporations that would technically pass the criteria of 
the 4e79 amendment, failing to add any of the desired accountability.


Tyler wrote:
> Before this takes effect, we'll have to make some changes in the Sock
> Corporations. Probably the Officers should just become parties.
>
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   
>> Proposal:  Enough already
>>
>> Amend Rule 4E79 (Incorporation) by replacing this text:
>>
>>      define at least one Officer.
>>
>> with this text:
>>
>>      define at least one Officer.  Only parties to a Corporation's
>>      Articles of Incorporation can be Officers of that Corporation.
>>
>> Create a rule titled "Escape Hatch" with this text:
>>
>>      Any party to a Corporation's Articles of Incorporation can,
>>      as a Game Action, cause that Corporation to cease to be bound
>>      to any contract.  This takes precedence over any obligations
>>      to the contrary.
>>
>>      This rule repeals itself one nweek after it is created.
>> _______________________________________________
>> spoon-business mailing list
>> spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   

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