On 6/26/20 11:34 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/25/2020 4:54 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 6/25/20 7:48 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 6/25/2020 4:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >>>> Auction regulations are regulations defined by this rule, all of which >>>> comprise a single body of law, and for which the Treasuror is the >>>> promulgator. The scope of auction regulations is wholly restricted to >>>> defining specific auction methods (i.e. "the default auction method") >>>> and placing binding obligations upon auctioneers. Definitions in auction >>>> regulations are used by Rules whenever clearly identified. The Treasuror >>>> SHOULD promulgate auction regulations in a manner that aids trade and >>>> commerce. To further aid trade and commerce, auction regulations are to >>>> be interpreted in the name of fairness with deference to the method's >>>> clear intent, if intent can be reasonably inferred. >>> Well, I tried to be a tapecutter in this rule, but Agorans be Agorans. Is >>> this really an improvement over the more self-contained concept? >>> (honestly I didn't want to use regulations at all here). >>> >> Yeah, sorry about that. I'm not sure what you mean by "the more >> self-contained concept", but I can propose to tear out the regulations >> phrasing from the rule if you want. >> > Hmm. What is really wanted is a document that defines terms/procedures > without actually authorizing them. > > The good thing about using regulations is that is has a good level of > document stability built in (i.e. a defined tracker, and a formal public > process to modify). That's the only reason I used them. > > But the need to now add "body of law", "scope" is a minus, plus you've put > what look to me like unnecessary legalese (eg "Definitions in auction > regulations are used by Rules whenever clearly identified") that take the > point away from the goal of this of common sense interpretation IMO. > > This is something of an experiment, and (like we've talked about for Sets) > I'd like to avoid tweaking the experiment in a way that takes away its > experimental qualities (by adding back in all the Agoran legal cruft - the > absence of which is what I mean by "self-contained concept") until it > becomes clear through judgement or whatever that it's actually necessary. > > -G. >
It might actually be possible to make it compatible by just striking the sentence about the definitions being as-if they appeared in the rules, without any other changes, and since the rules aren't supposed to directly reference auction methods. Would that be better? -- Jason Cobb
