(Condensing replies to save emails...)
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 4:36 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 8 May 2008, Alexander Smith wrote:
>> No, it doesn't have to take precedence over 2125. All 2125 implies is that
>> the
>> action of creating a contest is "regulated". Searching the ruleset for words
>> starting "regulat" finds that the only relevant affect that this has is to
>> prevent rule 101(ii) from allowing any player to create a contest at will. So
>> rule 2125 prevents a player creating a contest under rule 101 (this is very
>> useful, without it the game would just be a mess), but doesn't prevent a
>> player creating a contest under rule 2169.
>
> Yes it does. That's just nonsense. It's like saying "R101 prevents players
> from changing regulated things at will. But R478 allows players to perform
> actions by announcement, therefore players can change any regulated things by
> announcement". Substitute R2169 for R478 and "by equity judgement" with
> "by announcement" and you have your argument, which is equivalent nonsense.
Regulation is irrelevant. The judge does not create the contract.
The judge *specifies* the contract. R2169 is what creates it:
When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a
judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past
week (or all parties to the contract have approved that
judgement), the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement
between the parties.
You're trying to argue that a judge cannot assign a judgement and then
modify it as desired. I agree with you on that, but that is not the
scam.
> This is the current version of the Nomic "anything not regulated is permitted"
> that prevents Agora from extending to non-Agoran aspects of Players' lives.
> It's so fundamental we tend to forget that it needs to be specified and take
> it for granted. But in allowing the unregulated, it implies that permission
> is
> needed and mechanism must be specified to perform *any and every* regulated
> action.
We have both:
When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case
has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid
judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as
possible.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:55 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me that root's argument is broken only because 1742 allows
> players to create contracts generally, much the same way as equity
> judges can impose them. If contesthood is an intrinsic property of a
> contract, and ais was allowed to assign it as a judgement, then I
> could go ahead and make a pledge for which is_contest = 1. Although I
> could not then change is_contest because it is not a defined Contract
> Change, I would have as much right to specify it in the first place as
> to speicfy the text of the contract.
No, there's nothing in Rule 1742 that lets you specify arbitrary
attributes at the time you create the contest. In that case, R101's
regulation argument does apply. Rule 2169, however, allows the
judgement to be *any* agreement the parties could make, with no
stipulation on how involved it would normally be to get there. That's
where R2169 grants the extra liberty that R1742 does not.
> P.S. I don't think the same thing applies for switches. If the set of
> possible players was the set of valid judgements for a case, it seems
> to me that I would be required to state the value of each switch
> assigned to my player-judgement.
This brings up an interesting point. All entities have a Citizenship
switch. Must the judge of an equity case specify the Citizenship of
the contract e is creating? Your postscript suggests that you would
answer yes, which I think would actually support the case of
specifying the contract to be a contest.
It's ironic, then, I would disagree with you. Switches are state that
are attached to entities by the rules, not intrinsic properties of the
entities themselves. A contest, on the other hand, is a type of
contract; by R2136, a contract is "made into" a contest. (This is of
course somewhat blurred by the fact that R2162 explicitly defines the
phrase "to become X" in relation to switches.)
-root
