Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion

[Sgeo <sgeoster@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Jamie Dallaire
<bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Billy Pilgrim wrote:
>>
>> > That said, unless we get back to Contracts that hold assets (or even then
>> if
>> > they can easily transfer them to Players),
>>
>> Why is that relevant?  Does this pertain to clauses like "the members
>> are the persons who own one or more X"?
>>
>
> I meant this in the context of, say, 9 players deciding to pass a proposal
> that would change the text of a contract that binds 3 other players (to
> force them into all sorts of unpleasant things). Not that that ever really
> happens, just like I've never seen a proposal saying something like "teucer
> may never have points" pass. Just bad sportsmanship.
>
> But in the above scenario, if it's merely a contract that obliges the 3
> players to do certain things, they can easily drop out, dissolve the
> contract, and start it anew in the next nweek. If the Contract is something
> like Articles of Incorporation, and thus can hold assets or define an entity
> that holds assets, the parties cannot simply drop out and re-form, because
> then they lose the assets held by the contract entity. The contract might be
> able to transfer assets to the players, thus allowing this strategy, but I
> remember a while back Socks were stuck inside non-sock corps once bought.
> Corps did not have the right to give socks.
>
> Anyway, that's all very hypothetical, and I doubt anything of that nature
> would really happen.
>
Couldn't the rules just specify that certain players must do
something? Unless you have a rule like Canada had, saying that the
rules can't refer to specific players..
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss