Just a side comment but I find it fascinating how the rules governing the rules is a tautology lol. Although I guess it’s the same as:
“And the stuff this contract is governed by (the rules) is the stuff this contract ia governed by (the rules)” I dunno. It’s amusing in a way lol. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 01:15, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > [Please tell me this is my last one and I can finish up the Read the > Ruleset > contest instead of judging stuff tomorrow]. > > > > CFJ 3706: "All Players are parties to the Rules as a contract." > > I deliver the following judgement in CFJ 3706: > > - First and foremost, Agora is [an instance of] a game of Nomic (R101, > R1698). As this is specified in some of our highest-precedence rules, > anything that conflicts with Agora being a game would be overruled. > > - An instance of game, by societal convention (i.e. social contract), is > an agreement of a set of persons (players, or parties) to abide by a > certain set of rules when interacting in contexts covered by those > rules. This agreement includes the rules text and a set of persons who > are playing. > > - Players of games, by societal convention, are “bound” to those rules – > in the sense that it’s considered rude to pick up your ball and go home > before the rules say the game is over. Furthermore, the agreement- > nature of the game (including polite ways to leave the agreement) is > explicitly contained in R869. > > - The rules are governed by the rules. This is a tautology. > > - Therefore the “binding agreement to abide by the rules, as governed by > the rules” is a consequence of Agora’s “game nature”. It is a single > entity; e.g. the assets of “Agora as game” and “Agora as agreement” are > the same (R1586). > > - R1742 states that “Any group of two or more consenting persons (the > parties) may make an agreement among themselves with the intention that > it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement > is known as a contract.” This simply applied the label “contract” to > this type of agreement. > > - Therefore, the “contract” label applies to Agora. > > - But importantly, since the agreement is a consequence of Agora’s > game-nature in addition to R869, Agora is not “just” a contract. If the > definition of the label in R1742 is repealed, Agora continues to exist as a > game (R1586). > > - If the label is used to grant abilities or limitations to inheritors > of that label (e.g. “a contract CAN”), then those abilities or > limitations are also granted to Agora, but are (by agreement) subject to > the usual rules for precedence, power, etc. > > - However, an explicit statement using the label (e.g. “All contracts > are destroyed”) would include “Agora is destroyed” as part of its > effects, to be applied to whatever power the statement is given (see CFJ > 3580). > > - So beware of blanket directives applied to Contracts at power-3. > > - The current definition of Contract in R1742 was adopted on 01-Jul-18 > (Proposal 8054). Prior to that, the definition for “Contract” was such > that it did not apply to Agora. The previous definition (R2520) > included “An entity can only become a contract through the appropriate > ruleset defined procedures” and the defined procedures never occurred > for Agora. So the power-3 clause in Proposal 8054 (“Destroy all > contracts.”) did not apply to Agora. > > - Phew! > > - Rules currently applying to contracts (as a label) thus have the > effect of applying those rules to Agora, subject to the relative > precedence of those rules. > > - Now, before final judgement, some due diligence. If “contracts” > includes Agora, are any rules-references to contracts dangerous to > Agora? Here's the list: > > 1. “A contract may be modified, including by changing the set of > parties, by agreement between all existing parties.” (R1742) Yes, it > can – “without objection” is a rules agreed-to method of determining > unanimous consent. By agreeing to the rules, the parties have already > agreed that other methods, such as everyone saying “I agree”, don’t > work for Agora, due to power/precedence/etc. of this clause relative to > others. > > 2. “A contract may also terminate by agreement between all parties.” > (R1742) Some hoops would have to be jumped through as part of the > agreement-to-terminate (e.g. repealing the protective rules) but again, > this is fine, putting it here does not override existing higher-power > protections. > > 3. “A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to it > falls below two.” (R1742) This one is interesting, as it adds a stealth > protection – the second-to-last person in Agora may be prevented from > deregistering due to R1698. (that might not be the exact mechanism, but > R1698-effectsd would overrule any termination implied by R1742). > > 4. “A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as > permitted by the contract's text:...” (R1742). Yup, if the rules > permit, the players can do those things. Which would be true if this > clause didn’t exist. > > 5. “Contracts have Mint Authority.” (R2166). So do rules, so this adds > nothing. > > 6. “ownership of an asset is restricted to Agora, players, and > contracts.” (R2576). The lists includes Agora and contracts so changes > nothing. Same with the more specific asset limitations (e.g. coins). > > 7. The thing with allies and space battles isn’t an issue. > > - Therefore, there is nothing in the current ruleset that fails to treat > Agora Right Good by applying the label of “Contract” to it as per R1742, > the only danger is being sure that future proposals or other instruments > that say “all Contracts are [X]” are proofed against harming the rules. > But given that all power-3 proposals have some danger of overruling > everything, that particular concern doesn't particularly keep me up at > night. > > - I find TRUE. > >
