Did we sort of test that with the recent pledge-in-a-hash?
On possibility is that we finally define "gamestate" as the state calculated from the sum of all restricted actions (and only restricted actions). One possibility for pledges is that the only way Agora recognizes the existence, and thus violation of a contract-like thing is if it's posted publicly - but this public posting can be retroactive, so Agora ignores public pledges UNLESS AND UNTIL a party alleges in public that it's been broken. On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote: > So if I make a private agreement with someone, it's officially unreasonable > to ding them > for any failures to fulfill unless we expose the contract publicly > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 09:00 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > Well that's one way to forbid punishing anyone for lies or bad intent, > if nothing > else. > > This is pretty much already what we play by though, in that it can be > argued > "if it's not in the PF, it's beyond the reasonable effort of an officer > or a > judge to figure it out" so it's thrown out as not being a determinate > part of > the game state. > > So if you really want to go this route, I'd suggest something like > making this > a definition: "it is beyond a reasonable effort for a recordkeepor or > judge to > determine facts about eir records that are not available in public > fora" or the > like. This ties the limitation to calculations affecting Regulated > Actions and > not the more amorphous "gamestate". > > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > The Telepathy problem seems like a puzzle to crack, I'd like to keep > on trying: > > > > Proto: > > Title: No Telepathy v2 > > AI: ? > > Content: Add to rule (something): > > > > "The gamestate is at all times calculable from information posted at > the public fora." > > > > > > >
