On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 00:29 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> A lot of feedback here. Much of it is typo corrections, but not all of
> it.
>
>> Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]
> "Contract" is not currently rules-defined, so this attempts to destroy
> real-life contracts (thus creating a legal fiction that they don't
> exist). Given that Agora used to be capable of recognising those, this
> may be a useful precaution to take anyway; I just find the implications
> interesting.
I know. I just want to make absolutely sure no one claims that
existing contracts kept existing even in the absence of an authorizing
rule (like patent title do) and are now binding again.
>> A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
>> inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
>> unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an unreasonable
>> effort resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is inextricable
>> if
> "unreasonable effort to resolve"
>> its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player SHOULD
>> NOT
>> use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.
>>
>> An action said to be "subject to" a conditional if the possibility,
> "An action is said to be "subject to" a conditional if its
> possibility,"; you have two separate typos here
Fixed.
>> permissibility, or effect (depending on context) is determined by the
>> conditional. A value is said to be subject to a conditional of the the
>> state
> "conditional if the state"
Fixed.
>> of the value is determined by the conditional.
>
>
>> A person SHALL not act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the
> "SHALL NOT"
Done.
>> second person to violate the rules. A person CANNOT act on behalf of
>> another
>> person to do anything except perform a game action; in particular, a person
>> CANNOT act on behalf of another person to send a message, only to perform
>> specific actions that might be taken within a message.
> This seems to preclude publishing a report on behalf of another player,
> unless you treat the report as a body of text that's nonetheless
> distinct from the message containing it.
It does. That is also precluded by protected action 6. I'm not opposed
to making an exception in the long run, but I'd like to wait until
we've worked out the bugs and scams.
>> A regulation's promulgator SHALL generally obey eir own regulations as long
>> as they are acting reasonably within their rule defined scope. E NEED NOT
>> follow any regulation constraining em to take or not to take some action
>> with
>> to eir regulations, or any regulation constraining em to violate a rule.
> "with to" doesn't make sense. Do you mean "with respect to"? (It's
> possible that the correct correction is something else, but it needs
> correcting somehow.)
Changed to "with regard to".
>> A contract is a textual entity, and the ruleset described entity embodied
>> therein. A document can only become a contract through the appropriate
>> ruleset
>> defined procedures. Changes to the contracts text by rule defined
>> mechanisms
> "contract's text"
>> (including those delegated to the contract itself) do not change the
>> identity
>> of the contract.
>>
>> The following changes are secured at power 2.1: creating or modifying a
>> contract or causing an entity to become a contract. [Note that,
>> as a precaution, causing an entity to cease being a contract is not
>> secured.]
> The square-bracketed section will end up in the ruleset the way your
> proposal is currently worded. I recommend either removing it or
> removing the brackets (it wouldn't be terrible to have an explanatory
> note in the rules).
Note the top paragraph "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."
>
>> Contracts have parties, who are persons. The person(s) who create(s) a
>> contract is/are automatically a party/parties. Other persons CAN become
>> parties by announcement if the contract permits them do so. Parties can
>> leave
> "Other persons CAN become parties to a contract by announcement if the
> contract permits them to do so"; this is a combination of a typo fix
> and a rewording to make it clearer.
Done.
>> a contract by announcement, ceasing being parties, if the contract permits
>> the to do so. A contract CAN expel a party or group of parties by
> "if the contract permits them to do so"
>> announcement, causing them to cease being parties.
Done.
>> formation. The Notary CAN by regulation increase this limit up to a maximum
>> of 7; e CANNOT decrease it.
> I'd be happier without the regulation clause here, given that it looks
> a bit like the regulation works by amending a rule. If you think that
> the ability to change the limit is necessary, I'd recommend stating
> something like "the limit is by default 3, but can be set to a higher
> value as specified by regulation by the Notary". Or just making it a
> switch, that works too.
How's this:
"A person CAN create a contract by announcement by spending 1 shiny, specifying
the contract's text. A person SHALL NOT create more than X (where X is the
contract limit) contracts per week by this method, and the Notary CAN destroy
any excess (i.e. beyond the X permitted) contracts by announcement within 7
days of the contracts' formation, but only if the contract(s) were excess at
the time of their creation.
The contract limit is an untracked singleton switch, defaulting to 3, with
possible values of any integer between 3 and 7. The contract limit can be
set to any valid value in a regulation promulgated by the Notary."
It's a tad clumsy, but I think it captures the correct meaning.
>> If a contract has fulfilled its purpose, does not specify any gamestate
>> affecting statements, or otherwise seems unlikely to be used, the Notary
>> CAN and SHOULD destroy it Without 2 Objections or with Agoran Consent. Any
>> player may destroy a contract with 2 Agoran Consent. Players SHOULD NOT use
> "may"? You probably mean "CAN" here.
Done.
>> the methods in this paragraph to further their private interests.
>
>> The text of a contract CAN specify obligations upon its parties. Parties to
> Given that this is a state of existence rather than an explicit action,
> I'd prefer "can" to "CAN" here.
Done.
>> a contract SHALL abide by its terms and SHALL NOT deliberately or
>> negligently
>> breach them. The fact that the action described by the contract is in
>> violation of the rules is not a defense if the violative nature is
>> reasonably clear from its text. If whether an action is permitted or
>> forbidden
>> by a contract is indeterminate or subject to an inextricable conditional,
>> it is presumptively permitted.
>
>> As an exception to the provisions of the previous paragraph and the
>> circumstances in which cards would ordinarily be appropriate, a person
>> awarding a card under this rule MAY and CAN validly consider the equitable
> "CAN validly" is pretty much a synonym for "MAY". Congratulations on
> finding a place where "MAY" is appropriate, though!
No, it isn't. MAY means "CAN permissibly". It is currently ILEGAL
_and_ IMPOSSIBLE for the referee to give inappropriate cards, so if
I'm stretching the definition appropriateness I need to make the
action both legal and possible.
>> interests of justice and interests of the game, including the importance of
>> the observation of contracts, as a mitigating or aggravating circumstances
>> when awarding a card. Such a person MAY, CAN validly, and SHOULD also
>> consider
>> the instructions of the contract or contracts in question when issuing a
>> card.
>
>> The text of a contract CAN permit persons to act on behalf of a party or
>> group of parties. To do so, it must specify:
>>
>> a. Which of its parties can be acted on behalf of;
>> b. What actions can be taken;
>> c. Who can take the actions; and
>> d. Any conditions or limitations upon the actions. Such limitations
>> and conditions CANNOT be inextricable, and if they are,
>> the actions CANNOT be used.
> I considered trying to persuade the Rulekeepor to number rules out of
> order so that this could be scammed, but it's too much effort for too
> small a scam. You just want "If any of the limitations or conditions
> are inextricable, the actions CANNOT be used"; as you have it at the
> moment, you're attempting to define the limitations as being
> extricable, in contradiction to the definition earlier.
Done. I'm not sure a judge would agree with you, but I'd rather not
risk it and your way is clearer.
>> The following are protected actions:
>>
>> 1. Registering and deregistering;
>> 2. Submitting, pending, or voting freely on a proposal, but only if the
>> sole
>> effect the proposal would have if adopted is to create, modify, or
>> destroy
>> a contract or group of contracts, or to cause an entity or group of
>> entities to become or cease to be a contract or group of contracts;
> You should probably ban contracts from interfering with the
> distribution and assessment of the proposal, too.
See item 6.
>> 3. Destroying or amending a contract, intending to do so, and
>> supporting, objecting to, or resolving such an intent, except where the
>> mechanism for such destruction or amendment is created by the contract
>> itself, and creating a contract;
> This sentence is really hard to read. I'd recommend either moving
> "creating a contract" to a new bullet point (preserves the meaning), or
> placing it at the start, i.e. "Creating, destroying or amending a
> contract" (note that this changes the meaning slightly, but in a
> probably harmless way)
I did the later.
>
>> 7. Objecting to or supporting an intent to perform an action while
>> speaker;
>> 8. Using an executive order; and
> If you want to protect these two, you might want to consider protecting
> the ability to start a Festival too (which is the same sort of thing).
> On the other hand, it might be interesting for all of these actions to
> be controllable by contract.
>
>> 9. Making, amending, revoking or calling in a pledge.
> We could/should consider repealing pledges quickly after this is
> adopted, on the basis that contracts have a superset of their
> abilities, although that's not necessary to do in the same proposal;
> this proposal's doing quite enough as it is!
I think pledges serve a useful purpose. On the other hand, it would be
possible to move the entire pledge rule into a contract, given how
powerful contracts are.
>> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a contract CANNOT compel, forbid,
>> or in any significant way alter, tamper with, or modify the performance of
>> a protected action. A contract CANNOT punish a player for performing or
>> failing protected action, or for doing so in a particular manner, except
>> where it would otherwise be ILEGAL. A contract also CANNOT enable a person
>> to
> "ILLEGAL"
Fixed.
>> do any of the things prohibited to the contract by this paragraph. Insofar
>> as
>> a contract or a provision or clause of a contract contravenes the letter or
>> spirit of this rule, it is void and without effect.
>
>> A contract's text can specify whether or not that contract is
>> willing receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, a contract CANNOT
> "willing to receive"
Fixed.
>> be given assets it is unwilling to receive. If the contract is silent on
>> the
>> matter, or if its willingness is indeterminate or the subject of a
>> inextricable conditional, the procedure to determine its willingness is as
>> follows:
>
>
>> An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by announcement
>> by
> "paid", surely?
Fixed.
>> its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its
>> backing document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
>> document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
>>
>> To spend an asset is to pay or destroy it for the purpose of doing some
>> other
>> action or fulfilling an obligation by announcement; if the action would not
>> be completed, the obligation would not be at least partially fulfilled, or
>> more of the asset would be spent than is needed to perform the
>> action/fulfill
>> the obligation, then the attempt to spend fails. Whether the asset must be
>> spent or payed is determined by what is needed to perform the action. If
> Likewise, "paid" here too.
Fixed.
>> the entity defining or enabling the action does not specify which is
>> necessary, but merely that the asset must be spent, then it is transferred
>> (to Agora unless otherwise specified).
>
>> Amendments to a backing document shall not be construed to alter, transfer,
>> destroy, or otherwise effect any assets defined by that document, unless
> "affect"
Fixed.
>> that is their clear intent.
>>
>> An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if it's
> "its"
Fixed.
Thank you for your help!
-Aris
