On 6/23/09 4:12 AM, C-walker wrote:
> I've been working on this proposal but I'm not sure what the reaction
> would be so I've decided to proto it first. Comments welcome.
>
> {
>
> Act on Behalf (AI = 1, II = 2)
>   
[snip]

So, I've been musing on my own version of this:

Proposal: Regulating Act-on-Behalf (AI=3)

Enact a new Power-3 rule titled "Acting on Behalf" with the
following text:

    Acting on behalf of (syn. send messages on behalf of) a
    person (the grantor) with a specified message is equivalent
    to sending a public message authored by the grantor.

    Acting on behalf of a person is secured, with power
    threshold 3 for first-class grantors and power threshold 2
    for second-class grantors.

    Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, acting on behalf of a
    person is INVALID if not published. Such publication is
    INVALID unless it specified the text of the simulated message by:
    (a) clearly stating the text of a message;
    (b) clearly specifying an action (the message states the
        grantor performs the action); or
    (c) performing by announcement an action defined in a public
        contract's text to (clearly and unambiguously) include
        causing the grantor to perform a specific action (the message
        states the grantor performs the action)

Enact a new Power-3 rule titled "Permission to Act on Behalf"
with the following text:

    A person CAN act on behalf of a partnership (if it is a
    person) as unambiguously permitted by that partnership's
    text.

    A person CAN act on behalf of another person when unambiguously
    permitted by a public contract to which the grantor is a
    party.

    If permitted by rules with power at least 1.7, a judge in an
    equity or criminal case CAN act on behalf of a party or
    defendant without not more than 5 objections.

Some rationales:
- Secured at Power 3 because if arbitrary Power 1 act on behalf works,
then you have a Power 1 pass-any-democratic proposal scam.
- Power=1.7 grant is to not break the current equity case rule.
- (c) is to make deposit/withdraw work.
- Limited to public contracts and public messages to avoid UNDETERMINED
game state. There are some actions which cannot be performed by
announcement (e.g. submitting an Enigma puzzle), but I don't think any
of them are important enough to allow delegation for.

-woggle


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to