Ah, OK. I look forwards to when you do, then.
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
>
