On 6/8/20 2:12 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/8/2020 10:42 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:12 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On 6/7/2020 8:42 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: >>>> Here's my proto for generalized equity cases. I expect that there will >>>> be a bunch of screaming, but it's minimalistic and leaves working out >>>> the details of what equity means in practice to case law. Moots >>>> provide a sufficient safeguard against abuses. >>> Seriously, this is overwhelming. Please lets phase all our changes just a >>> wee bit. I'll just say I'd like to be involved, and until I see how the >>> ruleset looks after the next couple batches I'm not in favor of these >>> changes (will vote against) this month. >> >> Fair enough. I have a proto now, so we can discuss again whenever. > I think, on reflection, that I don't think we should use the > judge/judicial system for equity cases directly. I would rather create a > mediation process through the Notary with an inquiry (or maybe criminal) > case being the final recourse if that fails. > > Looking at your proto, I'm also uncomfortable expanding equity to "unfair > situations" in general as opposed to just contracts. That's far too much > of an open-ended slippery slope for me, and far far too removed from the > "game nature" of Agora, as written it could apply to any minor competitive > advantage, unless we vastly constrain (with written text) what's meant by > "just, fair, and right". > > But also, we shouldn't really worry about the procedure until we greatly > improve (as part of the infractions reform, perhaps) how we're treating > contract disputes. Right now, even the worst contract breach, the > offending party can just say "eh I broke a SHALL in R1742 give me a couple > blots, that's cheaper than keeping my end of the deal". Was fine for very > simple stuff. But now we're putting an economic value on blots, that > places a strict upper limit for penalties based on the maximum penalty for > breaking that SHALL. Can't really build equity around that.
This was something I had in mind when writing the proposal to allow people to create blots for themselves. My idea was that their would be some arbitration contract that authorizes acting-on-behalf to create blots for violations, with other contracts forcing opt-ins to the arbitration to be able to join. I never got around to writing up the arbitration contract, though. Another, potentially simpler, solution would be to expand the SHALL in R1742 to allow contracts to specify base values of crimes other than the default 2. -- Jason Cobb
