On Sun, 7 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> G. commented that e moved most of the provisions, rather than deleting
> them. All we'd be doing is reconsolidating them.
So after some thought, I don't think we'd be well-served by this approach.
I think that the original Rights did an ok job when it came to negative
rights (what the rules CANNOT do), especially when it came to scope of
rules and contracts - and it's easy to use a single clause to say "nope,
you're not bound by that contract because you didn't consent."
However, it was a useless/terrible approach to positive rights (where
you say the rules SHALL do something). A perfect example is Right (ii),
the "matters of controversy" right. At a first reading, this seems to
directly protect the CFJ system. But it doesn't! It's easy to argue
that a Proposal is a means of satisfying a matter of controversy, or
even "a Dictator making arbitrary and capricious dicta in response to
petitions" does the trick.
Well then, you might say "let's make that Right specific to CFJs". But
then, by the time you've described what you're trying to protect, you're
protecting a system - the CFJ system - not a right. Which is a good idea.
I think deleting the generic text from (ii), now in Rule 217, and
replacing it with a high-powered "the CFJ system is protected" to go
along with the proposal-protection (R1698) would be a better approach
than calling conflict-resolution initiation a "right".
Similarly, right (v), participation in the Fora, is better served by
just making R478 suitably protective (which it is already IMO, unless
there's a specific problem I'm not thinking of).
As far as your suggestions:
> - The right to believe anything that isn't demonstrably false
There's no way to control "belief" so I'm not sure what you're getting
at here. What's stopping anyone from believing anything?
> - The right not to be ignored
What does this mean? There's many processes that, if a person initiates
them, require a response (CFJs, proposals, CoEs, etc.). How is this a
right in the general sense? What's an example where it's violated?
> - The right to have a path to obtain meaningful influence on the
> political process
Again, really vague, hard to quantify and easy to loophole out of. And
in my mind, a political not a judicial question.
But I think there's room for improvement. In particular, I'd make a few
suggestions:
1. I think the "scope of the rules and agreements in general" (i, iii,
iv, and vii) could be brought together in a single rule. Maybe that's
R101, maybe not. The scope of nomic Rules (and contracts/agreements
that grow out of them) is of fundamental interest to a voluntary nomic,
so I could see an argument for having these up front again as "rights"
(especially since we like to radically change contracts, tournaments,
pledges, agreements from time-to-time, this is a place for some
overarching protections that work regardless of specific system).
2. (ii, v, viii) are best addressed through protecting CFJs, Fora, and
Registration respectively, in detail in their own existing rules (I
think they're pretty protective now, though the CFJ-one needs work as
mentioned).
3. I think (vi) is better-served by cleaning up the mess in R2531, and
maybe, to make it more fundamental, rephrasing that as more general ("no
punishment shall") instead of making it specific to levying a fine.
4. To "pull this all together", I'd suggest, after cleaning up some of
the issues in individual rules, maybe bringing them together through
Rulekeepor category reorganization into a section of the ruleset, and
deciding if they're all at the correct power, rather than all in a
single rule.
Hope this is constructive!
> If anyone has any other suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them.
>
> -Aris
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 7:32 PM Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't see much immediate benefit in adding this because a lot seems
> > redundant.
> >
> > 1 - Doesn't Regulated Actions already cover this?
> > 2 - CFJs should cover this.
> > 3 - Shouldn't Contracts cover this?
> > 4 - I think this is new but it could be added I guess, somehow.
> > 5 - I think this is already in the Fora rules.
> > 6 - This should be in the Arbitor rules if it isn't already.
> > 7 - We already have a general unduly harassment rule, and deregistration is
> > free already I believe.
> > 8 - Could be expanded to that deregistering other people (even just one) is
> > also bad. Or a global cooldown on how frequently other people can be
> > deregistered by third persons, so that it's more of a mechanical and
> > unambiguous protection. Is two people "en masse"? Three? How many?
> >
> > It would be aesthetically nice to have a Bill of Rights, but it's too much
> > wordcount (to an already overwhelming ruleset) to be outweighed by it's
> > appealing feel, imo.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:08 AM Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:46 PM Aris Merchant
> > > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know we used to have a Bill of Rights in Rule 101. It might be neat
> > > > to add that back again. Does anyone (particularly anyone who around
> > > > when we last had it) have any comments on the idea of bringing back
> > > > legal rights?
> > >
> > > For public reference, the text of Rule 101 back when it was a bill of
> > > rights:
> > >
> > > Rule 101/15 (Power=3)
> > > The Rights of Agorans
> > >
> > > WHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a
> > > game but as a society, and WHEREAS a society, to function, must
> > > balance its Rules with the natural rights of its participants,
> > > BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that no interpretation of Agoran law or
> > > binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person's
> > > rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and
> > > legal amendment of this Rule. For the purposes of this Rule, a
> > > "person" is defined strictly as any unique biological organism
> > > that is generally capable of initiating the communication of
> > > independent thought, and a "player" is any such organism that is
> > > also a player of Agora.
> > >
> > > This rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow or
> > > mandate restrictions of the rights contained herein.
> > >
> > > i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the
> > > ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or
> > > regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of
> > > changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules
> > > explicitly or implicitly permit it.
> > >
> > > ii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to
> > > resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable
> > > expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.
> > > Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration
> > > of any judicial determination that e should be punished.
> > >
> > > iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to
> > > a binding agreement. The absence of a person's explicit,
> > > willful consent shall be considered a refusal.
> > >
> > > iv. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by
> > > an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, or a Rule
> > > Change, which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to
> > > review. For the purpose of protecting this right, a rule
> > > change which would otherwise take effect without its
> > > substance being subject to general player review through a
> > > reasonably public process is wholly prevented from taking
> > > effect.
> > >
> > > v. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.
> > >
> > > vi. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than
> > > once for any single action or inaction. However, this
> > > right is not violated by replacing part or all of a
> > > penalty with a different but comparable penalty, e.g. when
> > > the rules governing penalties are amended.
> > >
> > > vii. Every player has the right to deregister; e may continue
> > > to accrue obligations and penalties after deregistration
> > > but, if e wishes to ignore the game, such penalties shall
> > > not unduly harass em.
> > >
> > > viii. The players of Agora have the right not to be
> > > deregistered en masse. A person has the right to
> > > register and to remain a player except where forbidden
> > > due to eir own prior actions.
> > >
> > > Please treat Agora right good forever.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
>
