I see a lot of "done's" and "fixed" but I don't see a "latest version"
part. Please post it to check it out. (I do a lot/want to do a lot of
Agency stuff lol. It's my favorite mechanic, and if you make it even
better, then, I'd be super grateful)
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
