Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion

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

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Charles Schaefer
<chuckles11489@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> 2008/11/27, Ed Murphy emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >
> >
> > Contracts can do that anyway.  What the rules could usefully do is
> > prevent such clauses from being amended by methods defined outside
> > the contract (e.g. by proposal).
>
>
> But such a proposal could just repeal the rule, amend the contract, then
> put
> the rule back in.


Good point. I would support a mechanism that defended Contracts between 2-3
players from being amended against these players' will by the wider
population of B. Perhaps a rule blocking that would need a supermajority
(that's yet another mechanism to add... unless you just make it work that
way for essential rules, e.g.) to change?

That said, unless we get back to Contracts that hold assets (or even then if
they can easily transfer them to Players), it's also up to the Contract's
members to make sure they have an appropriate escape clause. If need be,
they can drop out on nday 12 and reform the Contract on nday 1.

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