This enters a bit of philosophic territory but I think it's interesting
nonetheless.
We routinely "agree" that the current incarnation of Agora in the present
exists in the way it does, via CfJs and self-ratification other mechanisms,
and that the incarnation in the present is binding upon us.
For example, when there is a big schism and people don't recognize the
other side's version to be binding on them, and then they are reunited
again via some Proposal or other mechanism, isn't that having them all
agree to be bound to that incarnation of Agora?
This might imply that there would be several, past versions of Agora as
contracts, although I believe that they all tie together like a pearl
necklace in time because we agree that each incarnation leads to the next.
Like "do we all agree that Agora is like this now? Yes? OK." and then later
on "Hey, everyone, Agora is this, right? And it's binding to us? Yeah?
Alright good.".
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:38 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 3:27 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/20/20 6:08 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > I’ll start with the second question. It appears that the version of
> the rule in question there was 8139/20. (The court admonishes G. for
> failing to include revision numbers in his rule citations, by the way.) The
> current rule, 8139/22, is largely similar, with the following changes:
> > > * Lowered the minimum party count to one.
> > > * "may make an agreement” -> "may publicly make an agreement”
> > > * “agreement between parties” -> “consent of all parties” throughout
> > > * The new stuff about provisions being public and the body/annex
> distinction
> > > * A requirement that things be permitted "explicitly and unambiguously”
> > > * Clarity in wording about asset changes
> >
> >
> > I don't think we've ever had a rule 8139.
> >
> > Rule 1742/22 (the one I think you're referring to) also contains this:
> >
> > > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any change that would
> cause
> > > the full provisions or parties of a contract to become publicly
> > > unavailable is canceled and does not take effect.
> >
> >
> > If Agora is in fact a contract, that clause might be enough to trigger
> > ossification protections, or at least break proposals (without a lot of
> > extra effort). Also, it might mean that if a Rulekeepor has ever made a
> > mistake since the last ratification, the text would not be publicly
> > available. This is probably a best interests of the game argument for
> FALSE.
>
> No, it wouldn't. (Or at least, I didn't really mean it to when writing
> the rule, though admittedly I did leave open the possibility it could
> be read that way.) The main situation I was trying to prevent was an
> amendment being agreed upon in secret. The rules are never secret.
> They're always "available" (to my way of thinking), you just sometimes
> have to apply the diffs of resolved proposals yourself to work out
> what there are. If anything, read that way, this provision would be a
> good thing; it would prevent secret amendments to the rules, even if
> they might otherwise somehow be possible.
>
> > You also wrote:
> >
> > > There is one point in 3706’s logic that at least isn’t clearly to me.
> I’ve reproduced it below: {
> > > - 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.
> > > }
> >
> > I don't think the sentence "Any group of two or more consenting persons
> > (the parties)..." actually does anything. It's not really enabling, as
> > any two people can make an agreement with whatever intention they
> > please; they don't need the rules to let them do that. However, it could
> > be permitting an action, which is supported by Rule 2152's definition of
> > "MAY", but then it would be permitting something that wasn't already
> > prohibited.
> >
> > And if the first sentence is not enabling, then I think the argument for
> > it being a new, special game action gets a good bit weaker.
>
> Yeah, I don't really buy it being a special game action, though I'm
> not sure I disagree enough to appeal a ruling to that effect. That
> reads more as a definition to me. *shrug*
>
> -Aris
>
