On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 15:03 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > [ais523: still consider your role to be primary author if you want > to take it from here. Just such a good idea wanted to help get it out]. I'm happy for you to do the proposing, because a) as far as I can tell it doesn't matter who does so, and b) I'm still not sure if I'm a player.
> Promises v0.2 > > [A fleshed-out version of ais523's idea. The Tree is a method of > making pledges to all Agorans.] > > [Note: Does this have to be power-3 to get around R2170? Discuss.] I don't think it conflicts with R2170, although it seems to cause some real weirdness wrt dependent actions. It might be better to make the situation more explicit. > Create a rule (power -2 or -3): > > A Promise is an asset created as described by this rule. Horton is > an Office and the recordkeepor for promises; Horton's weekly report > includes the text, author, liquidity, and owner of all existing > promises. The Tree is an entity for holding promises. "Ownership of promises is limited to persons and the Tree"? > A Player (the promise's author) CAN create a promise by publishing the > text of the promise with clear intent that this text is meant to be a > promise. Optionally, the author CAN, in the creating message, specify > that the promise is created in the possession of another entity that > CAN own it, and that the asset is fixed (if not specified, the default > is that the promise is created in the author's possession, and is > liquid). I'd prefer to keep it simple in the first version, and am not sure if possibly fixed promises are as interesting as things that are necessarily tradeable. > Promises with the same text, author, and liquidity are fungible. > > The creation, transferring, cashing, and destruction of promises > is secured. > Create a rule called "cashing promises" (power -2 or -3): > > A Player CAN cash a promise in eir possession by announcing that > e does so, unless the text of the promise makes it IMPOSSIBLE; e > must clearly identify the promise and SHOULD publish its text. > When a promise is cashed, the text of the promise is interpreted as > if it were published by the author as a standalone statement; if > that statement requires additional context, that context MUST be > supplied within the body of the message indicating the cashing. I'm a little unsure on how the text of the promise would make cashing IMPOSSIBLE; it has no more power to do that than the text of a proposal being voted on, surely? > Any player CAN destroy a promise in eir possession without cashing > it, by announcement. Redundant to general asset rules. > If a transfer is possessed by the Tree, any player except the > promise's author CAN transfer it to emself by announcement, if e > cashes the promise in the same message in which e transfers it to > emself. > > Notwithstanding other rules or other provisions of this rule, > nested or circular promises, wherin the promise's text purports to > create, destroy, or cash another promise, CANNOT be cashed. Recursive cashing seems fine, and potentially even useful, except for timing issues. Recursive destruction seems even more fine. Recursive creation and cashing in the same message almost certainly should be disallowed; probably banning creation is simplest. (And "I promise that I will promise that..." is a little silly.) > Horton CAN destroy any promise Without Objection. -- ais523
