A very good execution of a fun idea.
Date: 06 May 2015 22:15
Number of posts: 40
RSS: New posts
I love this. I love this even though it has one niggling bit1 that bugs me, and that takes work!
No doubt, but none of them can logically result in sapience.
Since when did logic have anything to do with the legal profession?
It does have something to do with stories, which this is. Just saying "but law is weird" is kind of a cop-out, like "radiation!", IMO, YMMV.
Since when do skips makes sense? Besides, there are plenty of other skips that were created through arcane rituals with impossible-to-understand incantations. What is legalese but a system of arcane rituals with impossible-to-understand incantations?
P.S. Even if the origin premise is absurd, I, personally, do not find that an element of absurdity automatically relegates something to the -J set. If an absurd premise is treated seriously (see: Moon Snakes), it can make a decent mainlister.
1) My sense of humor was shot off in the war.
2) An arcane process may be expected to summon or create a sentient entity. As can a deliberate techlogical attempt to do so. Microwaving non-dairy creamer probably can't.
3) If random legal errors can create sapience a) how is then an anomaly, since it is then totally mundane in origin and b) why aren't sapient legal constructs running around since Hammurabi.
Anyway, this whole drift is pointless. I like the scip. I find the proposed origin to be not funny and out of place. You aren't going to convince me. I'm not going to convince you. 'nuff said.
This is somewhat similar to a previous sentient corporation (SCP-1442) but is different enough to get a pass on that. That one is an active company whose physical elements (humans and materials) unconsciously act in concert to create a sentient mind.
This one is a nebulous legal entity with no actual physical assets (human or material) that acts on its own.
As a lawyer, this is very fun, although since it's its own sole shareholder, it should be able to mount a shareholder representative action to injunct those articles of dissolution. Perhaps sue the directors for breach of fiduciary duty. Anyway +1
PLEASE DON'T HURT ME I'M AFRAID
Actually laughed out loud at this. +1. It is a bit containment-focused, as all of spike's articles tend to be, but it works pretty well here since the stuff in the containment procedures and in the main description both get interesting payoff in the addendum. The legalese is complicated enough to sell the complexity of the entity without being so dense as to lose the reader.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
I've written a tale upvoted by Djoric, Bright, Echo, Yoric, Moose, VAE and Voct, fite me irl if you don't respect
So awesome to see him crop up again.
I was thinking of doing something similar with a poorly and polymorphically worded end user license agreement, but I might have to hold off on it, now.