UNDEAD seems super interesting. I just looked at a bunch of emails from the archive, but how did that end up? Was the contract ever revealed?
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 6:54 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: >>> On Sat, 2018-10-27 at 15:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>>> On another subject, since ATMunn's judgement brought it up, I've been >>>> thinking since our previous contract about what would happen if we put >>>> out a hashed contract, with one of the clauses being "the parties won't >>>> reveal the text of this contract", then claiming in public that it >>>> gives various powers etc. >>>> >>>> Worth testing? >> >> That would presumably be similar to the old UNDEAD contract. >> >> Presumably, you're still unwilling to reveal the details of what it >> entailed. If so, that would imply that it's still being treated as >> binding by its participants, so maybe it's once again a contract in the >> Agoran-legal sense. (This argument might break down, though, e.g. >> perhaps you'd keep it secret not because you had to, but because the >> sense of mystery surrounding it is more interesting than the fairly >> banal truth behind it.) > > Sorta similar! Not quite though. > > The UNDEAD contract doesn't do anything that outsiders needed to track > directly, such as whether the contract grants any act-on-behalf powers. > (I think I'm allowed to make general statements like that - I hope so!) > It governs members' actions and membership is secret, so when it came > out it was sorta like a game of werewolf (e.g. "which one of us is a > member? is that person doing those actions to support the UNDEAD > agenda"?) IIRC no-one with standing (i.e. no member) ever brought a > breach-of-contract case against another member. > > So in that sense it tested whether the Courts of the time could compel > the revelation of a private agreement (which they couldn't), but didn't > test whether Rules-granted abilities that impacted a recordkeepor (like > act-on-behalf) required transparency to be effective. > > >
