How to actually get an IA
01-20-2026 | 05:21 PM
#211
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 1,331
Likes: 386
I don’t disagree with what you write.
I am just saying that if we hypothetically trade using CNO for all reserve assignments in exchange for positive space commuting, do NOT say that that’s a concession because now you can’t exploit it when they screw that up. If they screw up the new system with CNO, then exploit away and get all the remedies you are entitled to.
I am just saying that if we hypothetically trade using CNO for all reserve assignments in exchange for positive space commuting, do NOT say that that’s a concession because now you can’t exploit it when they screw that up. If they screw up the new system with CNO, then exploit away and get all the remedies you are entitled to.
01-20-2026 | 05:24 PM
#212
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,483
Likes: 334
So in your example we take from RES and give to commuters. I know it will never be a tit for tat trade in section 6 but the fear is the people giving will not receive. CNO is an easy one but 23M7 and batch sizes, the real meat of your comment removes penalties as guardrails for what?
You thinking that something was taken is proving my point.
01-20-2026 | 05:25 PM
#213
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,379
Likes: 859
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
01-20-2026 | 05:26 PM
#214
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,483
Likes: 334
Yes, the company is less likely to make mistakes. But we dont sign contracts so that way we can exploit mistakes. We sign contracts for the contents of the contract.
01-20-2026 | 05:27 PM
#215
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,483
Likes: 334
The point of a contract is for the terms to be followed by both parties, not benefit from violations of the terms. No longer needing the remedy, is not a concession. That is the point.
01-20-2026 | 05:29 PM
#216
Racketeer
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,379
Likes: 859
From: N60.4858 W149.9327
I don't see it as a contractual benefit for RES under the current system. I see it as a remedy for contract violations.
The point of a contract is for the terms to be followed by both parties, not benefit from violations of the terms. No longer needing the remedy, is not a concession. That is the point.
The point of a contract is for the terms to be followed by both parties, not benefit from violations of the terms. No longer needing the remedy, is not a concession. That is the point.
01-20-2026 | 05:37 PM
#218
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,483
Likes: 334
Hopefully, in general, violations decrease, and a huge quid is gained, while nothing *contractually* meaningful changes (robot vs human).
01-20-2026 | 05:39 PM
#219
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,483
Likes: 334
That "something" was not a contractual provision. It was a byproduct of the contract being violated. The fact that it was not a provision is key. It was a second-order consequence that a few are able to exploit.
01-20-2026 | 05:41 PM
#220
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2021
Posts: 1,331
Likes: 386
What you are suggesting is to write the company into compliance. If it was a violation before, but we write in that it's no longer a violation (CNO is now fantastic for all reserve notifications yay!), please explain to me how nothing was given away.
