Re: [s-d] [s-b] If we're going to keep taking game actions through the emergency...

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

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Jamie Dallaire
> <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Jamie Dallaire
> >> <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > neo-dadaist alliance sounds interesting. Question (also applies to
> >> > pocketbook party): What happens when parties are modifying their
> >> platforms
> >> > through the voting period? If a half of the parties add a given
> proposal
> >> to
> >>
> >> Your obligation changes, of course.
> >
> >
> > Then this contract needs to be changed somehow before I ever agree to
> join
> > it. It would be ridiculous if someone were to change their platform at
> the
> > end of the voting period, resulting in other parties not fulfilling their
> > obligations simply because they weren't present in that short time window
> > before the end of nday 12. This has potential for infinitely short time
> > windows.
>
> As the only party I will happily not object to me changing it, if you
> have a suggestion.


First thing that comes to mind would be to make vote obligations contingent
upon the state of parties' platforms at the start of nday 11 or so. Gives
everyone time to set up their platforms as they wish. New parties who join
during the voting period but after nday 11 just don't count for the nweek's
voting.

>
>
> >> their platform on nday 11 and i've already voted FOR, does this obligate
> >> me
> >> > to vote against it? Do I have a Jiffy to fulfill my obligation, even
> >> though
> >> > it's only possible to fulfill it during 1+ nday?
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes to the first. And I believe if you don't vote during voting that
> >> an Oracularity will likely change this fact.
> >
> >
> > Are you saying that an Oracularity would change someone's votes? I really
> > don't think that would/should happen, since obligations are not ironclad
> > rules. I can't break a rule, but I can definitely choose not to fulfill
> an
> > obligation.
>
> If a contract obligates you to act in some way, you do so. If you
> fail, a Consultation may result in you being made to have done so.


I've never interpreted "equitably rectifying the breach" in this way... I've
always supposed it meant one party would be made to pay the other some sort
of damages. I figure you should be allowed to break the obligations of a
contract if you want (just like the obligations to a ministry, e.g.) but of
course you'd be heavily penalized/the other party compensated. The breach
and the penalty do not have to be of the same kind, though, I think. A
contract is just a promise, really, and those can be broken. I just think
that, otherwise, Contracts become WAY too easy to abuse. If j, 0x44, and I
decided to make some modifications to Black Corporation while Tyler was
away, should we be able to enslave him and control his Game Actions? That's
just my interpretation though, and as far as I remember we haven't had much
in the way of contract breaches being consulted upon yet. How do others see
it???
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss