A prayer rosario better represents what I mean than a pearl necklace but
yeah.
[image: image.png]
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:43 AM Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
