I'm trying not to do the 7 versions thing this time. I haven't added
ais523's upkeep fee thing yet, as it's more complicated than most of
these corrections, and I don't want to publish a new draft until I do.
-Aris
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
