Re: [s-d] [s-b] Shameless

["Craig Daniel" <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Jamie Dallaire
<bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Jamie Dallaire
>> <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > The obligations that come with membership to that Contract are just too
>> > staggering, as well as self-contradictory.
>>
>> Of course they're self-contradictory. With a name like that, what did
>> you expect?
>
>
> Hmmm, this is true. I really should have boned up on my Greeks before
> jumping into that contract ;-)
>
>
> to do one better than my previous email, one could also add in a provision
> precluding the prosecution (via consultation) of players who failed to
> fulfill obligations given unto them by a contract when that same contract
> forced them into breaking that obligation (either by making it unrealistic,
> or logically impossible, or otherwise).
>
> Someone mentioned recently Agora having something similar about breaking the
> laws of the game itself (which would apply to our courts system) where a
> ruling can declare that the player simply had no choice but to break one of
> two laws, for example. I don't think we necessarily need to go that far yet,
> but since contracts can impose obligations on people in a slightly more
> willy-nilly fashion (less once the emergency ends, hopefully), it might be
> good to have for contract law, at least.

I'm inclined to agree. I can't help but think there's no way to judge
the Consultation about whether ehird violated Epimenides by not giving
me all his mackerel as TRUE with *no oracularity whatsoever* - because
thanks to section ten, any oracularity would put him in violation in a
different way.

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