On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any
> rules
> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> have been removed before its resolution.
>
>
> <3
>
> [Note that, as a precaution, causing an entity to cease being a contract is
> not secured.]
>
>
> What are the implications of this?
A proposal at any AI or a rule at any power can destroy a contract.
> Notary CAN destroy any excess (i.e. beyond the 3 permitted) contracts by
> announcement in a timely fashion.
>
>
> CAN in a timely fashion is a bit of a weird combination. I guess it works,
> but I’d replace it with “CAN and SHALL in a timely fashion” or “CAN up to 7
> days after their creation.”
Done.
> Any public textual agreement or set of inseparably linked public textual
> agreements between a group of two or persons, made with the intention that
> the agreement(s) be binding and governed by the rules, is a contract.
>
>
> This may make pledges contracts, which could create double obligations.
> if e/they do/does not do so
It's either singular or plural. I think it has the intended effect,
though I admit it sounds a bit weird. :)
>
> A contract CAN amend, destroy, or retitle itself if its text permits it to
> do
> so.
>
>
> This seems to make it possible for contracts to make gamestate changes that
> are not directly linked to the sending of a message, which is bad for
> recordkeeping.
I added a "by announcement" which forces a player to actually send a
message. More details are in my reply to ais523's response.
> A player CAN amend, destroy, or retitle a contract without objection, even
> if the text denies em the ability to do so. Players SHOULD only use this
> mechanism to recover from situations where the Charter is underspecified or
> has unintended effects
>
>
> What Charter?
Fixed.
> If a rule specifies that contract SHALL or SHALL NOT do something
>
>
> Typo
Fixed.
> More general comments:
>
> I feel like the most likely scam here is one where the scammer creates a
> contract such as {{{ Any party may cause [scammer] to give them a trust
> token. Any player may become a party to this contract. }}}, then somehow
> amend the contract to give the scammer power to act on behalf of all other
> parties. I think it would be worthwhile to have multiple tiers of
> “partyship,” each including the last, and requiring explicit consent of both
> the player and the contract to switch tiers:
>
> 1) Allowed to use CANs in the contract, but not subject to any obligations
> therein. This may not even require explicitly being a party.
> 2) Being subject to SHALLs in the contract.
> 3) Allowing the contract to act on your behalf.
>
> This means that a contract requiring Tier 3 for “current agency stuff” would
> be instantly suspect.
I see your point, but your proposed solution violates the first design
principle. You don't have to be a party to use the CAN anyway, at
least unless the contract says you do. This is also why there are so
many ways to destroy a contract which the contract isn't allowed to
stop you from of punish you for leaving. Finally, I hope no player
would ever join a contract another player could arbitrary amend and
that e couldn't leave at will. The one thing that might be helpful is
some minimum time delay before a contract can be amended, like for
agencies, but I feel like that could violate principle two. Thoughts?
-Aris
