I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so
based on what we've found/discussed - I'll publish a proto tomorrow-ish.
I don't think we can bolt on to the existing I think it's just better
to do a complete re-write.
Rough outline:
- Better defines agreements as a whole, and explicitly defines
several type of agreement: The rules, pledges, private contracts, and
public contract (and makes it clear that "the rules" don't fall into
the other categories).
- Some formalization of the bootstrap procedure - a person "tenders
an offer" consisting of a body of text, to which other parties agree,
but they can't agree if the text doesn't let them join. Some other
formalities added (e.g. an offer lasts 1 week by default, or until
withdrawn, etc.)
- Fixes some of the Consent issues that have been raised.
- Makes it so private contracts can't ENABLE people to do stuff or hold any
currency, etc (no CANs, acts-on-behalf). A private contract only binds
actions through SHALLs. Only parties to a private contract can point the
finger at other parties; non-parties lack standing to do that.
- Public contracts have the various abilities that contracts have now
(act-on-behalf, CAN hold and support currency transfers, etc.) All
changes to a public contract must be published to take effect, the
full text must be provided
- Does this by tying public contracts to regulations, and the
promulgation thereof.
=G.
On 7/28/2019 11:41 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I already withdrew my original proposal, so the first clause is a no-op.
Jason Cobb
On 7/28/19 2:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:14 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
I submit the following proposal
Title: Limited-party contracts
AI: 2.5
Text:
{
Amend Rule 1742 as follows:
Before the paragraph beginning "Parties to a contract", insert the
following paragraph:
A player generally CAN become a party to an existing contract by
announcement. However, if the contract explicitly limits the
persons who can become party to itself, any person not
fulfilling those restrictions CANNOT become a party to the
contract. Before the creation of a contract, if a person could
not, in the hypothetical where the contract already exists,
become party to the contract, e is not counted as consenting to
the agreement for the purposes of the previous paragraph, even
if e has agreed to be party to the contract.
[Comment: The goal is to resolve the bug that G. recently showed (with
the contract that states that it is impossible to join). This would
prevent such a contract by ensuring that it could never reach the two
parties required to create it. This also gives force to clauses that
purport to limit the set of parties.]
}
I'm sorry, but this is phrased in a vastly more complicated way than
it needs to be. It's inelegant to add an entire paragraph to add a
single, simple condition (you can't I submit the following proposal.
-Aris
---
Title: Contractual Delimitation
Adoption index: 2.5
Author: Aris
Co-authors: Jason Cobb
If a proposal entitled "Limited-party contracts" has passed in the last
month, undo the effects of that proposal.
Amend Rule 1742, "Contracts", by changing the text
"It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a contract without
eir agreement."
to read
"It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a contract without
both eir agreement and the agreement of all other persons who are or would
be parties to that contract.
