There’s a slight problem with that wording. It doesn’t have to purport to define or describe it, it just has to do so. Purporting to define or describe something would be saying “I describe X”. Also, you’ve got to make sure you phrase it in a way that allows entities to refer to actions defined by other entities, e.g. a contract forbidding an action defined by another entity (which would be describing its property of forbiddenness).
-Aris On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:47 PM Jason Cobb <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you're right about the first sentence. I believe it made more > sentence in v0, where there was some context about defining actions. The > intent was to basically say that, when a binding entity creates an > action (either by explicit definition, or by describing its properties), > it "owns" that action, and nothing else can tamper with the binding > entity's description of it. > > It's very possible that the wording does not fit the intent. Would > adding this wording (similar to some wording from v0) make it any better? > > When a binding entity purports to explicitly define or to describe > the properties of an action, it defines an action that is distinct > from all other actions; the binding entity is said to "define" this > created action. > > (feel free to bikeshed the use of the word "define", "own" might > actually work better here) > > This has the side effect of ensuring that a contract cannot define the > natural language action of "breathing", it can only create a new action, > even if that action is "to breathe". > > > As for the second sentence, that might have become dead code in the > shrinkage, I'll double check and then strike it if it is. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/28/19 1:30 AM, James Cook wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 04:33, Jason Cobb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a binding entity CAN only > >> require or forbid an action that it does not define; it CANNOT > >> modify anything else about the action in any way. > > I don't understand this part. As far as I can tell, we interpret the > > Rules as defining something precisely when they talk about the > > properties of the action, which I guess you could call "modifying". > > E.g. R2465 permits Declaring Apathy and says it results in winning, > > but doesn't say "Declaring Apathy is...". > > > > So either modifying an action counts as defining the action, in which > > case this paragraph doesn't do anything, or it doesn't, in which case > > it's not clear at all that Declaring Apathy, initiating a CFJ, > > resolving an Agoran decision, etc, could be permitted or limited by > > the Rules. > > > >> The set of actions that are regulated by an entity is the entity's > >> set of regulated actions. > > What does the above paragraph do? I don't see the definition used > anywhere. >
