On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:25 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > 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 >
That does seem like it would be interesting. As it pertains to enforcement of R1742, there are various sorts of discretion that the rules provide to me that I could employ to punish appropriately when a contract clearly intended serious punishment.
