Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:24 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:12 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not > > > big change to the order of things... what if officers presumptively had > > > the > > > ability to rule on their areas of gamestate, in a more active manner than > > > our ratification system? Possibly a bit more of a shift towards a > > > pragmatic > > > philosophy as well. > > > > We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year > > or two and people were generally positive. Specifically two ideas > > came up: (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes > > about their reports, with some language that judges can only overrule > > the officers if their decisions are "arbitrary and capricious" (or > > some other legal standard of choice that we can set precedents about - > > "arbitrary and capricious" is one used in U.S. government > > regulations). (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories > > are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power" > > (e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over > > "non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy > > category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities > > within their defining category). > > > > I think the only barrier is no one sat down and did the deep work of > > implementation... > > A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a > complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more > fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the judiciary sort out > the details. > > -Aris > -- > Title: Administrative Adjudication > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > Enact a new rule, with power power 3.0, entitled "Administrative > Adjudication", > with the following text: > > Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, > which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, > have the power to resolve bindingly any matter within eir official area of > concern, insofar as that memorandum is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Come on everyone, comments? -Aris
Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO vague—are these rulings CFJ-like (a means of agreeing on what happened platonically, but with no actual platonic effect) or ratification-like? How is arbitrariness and capriciousness defined/judged? What about “official area of concern?” This seems like a particularly bad place for CFJ hell. When we inevitably end up with a dispute over whether a memorandum is valid, can that dispute itself be resolved by memorandum, by either the original officeholder or the Arbitor? The idea doesn’t seem immediately bad (although I’m not sure I prefer it either) but I think such an important area is not suitable for the “write something simple and let CFJs figure it out” strategy. Gaelan > On Jan 8, 2020, at 9:09 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:24 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:12 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion >>> wrote: This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not big change to the order of things... what if officers presumptively had the ability to rule on their areas of gamestate, in a more active manner than our ratification system? Possibly a bit more of a shift towards a pragmatic philosophy as well. >>> >>> We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year >>> or two and people were generally positive. Specifically two ideas >>> came up: (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes >>> about their reports, with some language that judges can only overrule >>> the officers if their decisions are "arbitrary and capricious" (or >>> some other legal standard of choice that we can set precedents about - >>> "arbitrary and capricious" is one used in U.S. government >>> regulations). (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories >>> are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power" >>> (e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over >>> "non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy >>> category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities >>> within their defining category). >>> >>> I think the only barrier is no one sat down and did the deep work of >>> implementation... >> >> A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a >> complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more >> fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the judiciary sort out >> the details. >> >> -Aris >> -- >> Title: Administrative Adjudication >> Adoption index: 3.0 >> Author: Aris >> Co-authors: >> >> Enact a new rule, with power power 3.0, entitled "Administrative >> Adjudication", >> with the following text: >> >> Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, >> which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, >> have the power to resolve bindingly any matter within eir official area of >> concern, insofar as that memorandum is neither arbitrary nor capricious. > > Come on everyone, comments? > > -Aris
Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
Seems reasonable to me. On Wed, Jan 8, 2020, 12:09 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:24 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:12 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > > > wrote: > > > > This gets me thinking of a potential big and > maybe-interesting-maybe-not > > > > big change to the order of things... what if officers presumptively > had the > > > > ability to rule on their areas of gamestate, in a more active manner > than > > > > our ratification system? Possibly a bit more of a shift towards a > pragmatic > > > > philosophy as well. > > > > > > We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year > > > or two and people were generally positive. Specifically two ideas > > > came up: (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes > > > about their reports, with some language that judges can only overrule > > > the officers if their decisions are "arbitrary and capricious" (or > > > some other legal standard of choice that we can set precedents about - > > > "arbitrary and capricious" is one used in U.S. government > > > regulations). (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories > > > are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power" > > > (e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over > > > "non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy > > > category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities > > > within their defining category). > > > > > > I think the only barrier is no one sat down and did the deep work of > > > implementation... > > > > A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a > > complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more > > fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the judiciary sort out > > the details. > > > > -Aris > > -- > > Title: Administrative Adjudication > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > Enact a new rule, with power power 3.0, entitled "Administrative > Adjudication", > > with the following text: > > > > Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, > > which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, > > have the power to resolve bindingly any matter within eir official > area of > > concern, insofar as that memorandum is neither arbitrary nor > capricious. > > Come on everyone, comments? > > -Aris >
Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
Aris wrote: > A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a > complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more > fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the judiciary sort out > the details. > > -Aris > -- > Title: Administrative Adjudication > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > Enact a new rule, with power power 3.0, entitled "Administrative > Adjudication", > with the following text: > > Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, > which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, > have the power to resolve bindingly any matter within eir official area of > concern, insofar as that memorandum is neither arbitrary nor capricious. I like the idea too! Regarding the implementation, these are very similar to regulations. Why not reuse the entity class? Something like this: Each officer CAN, with notice, enact a memorandum, which is a type of regulation. A memorandum has the power to resolve bindingly any matter within its office's area of concern. An attempt to enact a memorandum is INEFFECTIVE if it is arbitrary or capricious. /* maybe */ A memorandum is automatically repealed when all matters it regards are resolved. This has the advantage of also automatically tracking memoranda and providing mechanisms to amend or repeal them. Gaelan wrote: > I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO vague— > are these rulings CFJ-like (a means of agreeing on what happened > platonically, but with no actual platonic effect) or ratification- > like? How is arbitrariness and capriciousness defined/judged? What > about “official area of concern?” My understanding of the original proto was that the rulings were supposed to be binding, i.e. capable of modifying the gamestate, and that the other things were intentionally left vague to allow judges to rule in the best interests of the game. Gaelan wrote: > This seems like a particularly bad place for CFJ hell. When we > inevitably end up with a dispute over whether a memorandum is valid, > can that dispute itself be resolved by memorandum, by either the > original officeholder or the Arbitor? This is a good point - if judges are supposed to have authority over memoranda, the rule needs some way to stop memoranda from having authority over judges. Unsure of the best way of doing that. -twg
Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
On 1/8/20 12:08 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >> Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, >> which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, >> have the power to resolve bindingly any matter within eir official area of >> concern, insofar as that memorandum is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Actually, does this need to specify that the memorandum takes effect in order for it to change the gamestate? Otherwise, it's just something capable of changing the gamestate that doesn't actually do it. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 10:34 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 1/8/20 12:08 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > >> Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, > >> which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, > >> have the power to resolve bindingly any matter within eir official area > >> of > >> concern, insofar as that memorandum is neither arbitrary nor capricious. > > > Actually, does this need to specify that the memorandum takes effect in > order for it to change the gamestate? Otherwise, it's just something > capable of changing the gamestate that doesn't actually do it. I think what's being keyed off here is the "resolve" in R217's "formal process to resolve matters of controversy". Colloquially, we map that R217 "formal process" onto CFJs, but that's not the only means - for example a Proposal is a formal process to resolve a controversy (via a vote) and it could be argued that ratification is as well. So saying that a memorandum generically "resolves" things is likely too generic, especially because it's not clear what "bindingly resolve" or "power to resolve" means in a CFJ context - i.e. does a judge have a "power" or "binding" ability to resolve given that e can be overruled? (I don't think so - CFJs are purposefully toothless. So is a "binding" as described more like a CFJ, or a ratification?) A possible way forward is to say that officers may issue memoranda, and then add to R217 that "the current officer's memoranda" is part of the consideration for rules interpretation (somewhere alongside the "past judgements" part, though some refactoring of R217 may be needed to get in concepts like arbitrary and capricious). This would also have the feature of making an officer's memoranda an election issue. There should also be a way for a Player who's not the officer to "request a memorandum" or for a judge or Arbitor to say "you know what, this CFJ should be the subject of a memorandum let's get the officer's take first and I'll only overrule that if it's ridiculous". A super-lightweight may might be to say that the Arbitor SHOULD assign CFJs pertaining to an office to that Officer and that judges SHOULD seek the officer's opinion. (But where's the fun in that - we want administrative law, and we want it... well, we want it with 7 days public notice following a comment period...). -G.
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Tue., Jan. 7, 2020, 23:34 Aris Merchant via agora-discussion, < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 8280 Murphy, Jason Cobb 3.0 Resolve the troubles v1.1 > AGAINST > 8281 Gaelan 1.0 Nothing to see here, Rule 1030 v2 > AGAINST > 8282 Falsifian1.0 Let's do this the hard way v1.1 > AGAINST > 8283 Alexis 3.0 Ex Post Ribbon > FOR > 8284 Alexis 3.0 Line-Item Power > PRESENT > 8285 Alexis 3.0 Line-Item Roulette > FOR > 8286 Aris 1.0 I Forbid Vetos! > PRESENT
Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:59 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > > I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO vague—are > these rulings CFJ-like (a means of agreeing on what happened platonically, > but with no actual platonic effect) or ratification-like? How is > arbitrariness and capriciousness defined/judged? What about “official area of > concern?” I was afraid someone would say that. I just thought it might be fun to have major, game altering precedents. Arbitrariness and capriciousness kind of have to be vague (and is in the US legal system too), and it wouldn't make much sense to write out the official areas of concern of each office, though I could (maybe I'll put the current ones in a comment). I was going to leave the platonic/pragmatic thing for CFJs, but it would probably be better to just explicitly define it as platonic. > This seems like a particularly bad place for CFJ hell. When we inevitably end > up with a dispute over whether a memorandum is valid, can that dispute itself > be resolved by memorandum, by either the original officeholder or the Arbitor? Presumably not without being arbitrary or capricious. :) If you're really worried about it, I can add > The idea doesn’t seem immediately bad (although I’m not sure I prefer it > either) but I think such an important area is not suitable for the “write > something simple and let CFJs figure it out” strategy. What's the fun in that? Seriously, if the CFJs don't have a major impact on the future of the game, it's just boring. This way is more fun. -Aris > > On Jan 8, 2020, at 9:09 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:24 PM Aris Merchant > > wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:12 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > >>> wrote: > This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not > big change to the order of things... what if officers presumptively had > the > ability to rule on their areas of gamestate, in a more active manner than > our ratification system? Possibly a bit more of a shift towards a > pragmatic > philosophy as well. > >>> > >>> We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year > >>> or two and people were generally positive. Specifically two ideas > >>> came up: (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes > >>> about their reports, with some language that judges can only overrule > >>> the officers if their decisions are "arbitrary and capricious" (or > >>> some other legal standard of choice that we can set precedents about - > >>> "arbitrary and capricious" is one used in U.S. government > >>> regulations). (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories > >>> are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power" > >>> (e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over > >>> "non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy > >>> category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities > >>> within their defining category). > >>> > >>> I think the only barrier is no one sat down and did the deep work of > >>> implementation... > >> > >> A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a > >> complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more > >> fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the judiciary sort out > >> the details. > >> > >> -Aris > >> -- > >> Title: Administrative Adjudication > >> Adoption index: 3.0 > >> Author: Aris > >> Co-authors: > >> > >> Enact a new rule, with power power 3.0, entitled "Administrative > >> Adjudication", > >> with the following text: > >> > >> Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, > >> which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, > >> have the power to resolve bindingly any matter within eir official area of > >> concern, insofar as that memorandum is neither arbitrary nor capricious. > > > > Come on everyone, comments? > > > > -Aris >
Fwd: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
Oops, this somehow ended up being a reply to just Aris. In the future, please avoid cc’ing me if possible—I have rules configured to dump all Agora messages in a folder, and ccing directly to me breaks that. Begin forwarded message: > From: Gaelan Steele > Date: January 8, 2020 at 11:56:43 AM PST > To: Aris Merchant > Subject: Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc. > > I’d probably be at least a PRESENT on this if there was some provision that > CFJs were the ultimate arbiter of how this mechanism works. I’m just worried > about some sort of “constitutional crisis” situation where we have two > systems both claiming that they have jurisdiction over the other one, and no > independent way to resolve the conflict. > > Gaelan > >>> On Jan 8, 2020, at 11:51 AM, Aris Merchant >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:59 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion >>> wrote: >>> >>> I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO vague—are >>> these rulings CFJ-like (a means of agreeing on what happened platonically, >>> but with no actual platonic effect) or ratification-like? How is >>> arbitrariness and capriciousness defined/judged? What about “official area >>> of concern?” >> >> I was afraid someone would say that. I just thought it might be fun to >> have major, game altering precedents. Arbitrariness and capriciousness >> kind of have to be vague (and is in the US legal system too), and it >> wouldn't make much sense to write out the official areas of concern of >> each office, though I could (maybe I'll put the current ones in a >> comment). I was going to leave the platonic/pragmatic thing for CFJs, >> but it would probably be better to just explicitly define it as >> platonic. >> >>> This seems like a particularly bad place for CFJ hell. When we inevitably >>> end up with a dispute over whether a memorandum is valid, can that dispute >>> itself be resolved by memorandum, by either the original officeholder or >>> the Arbitor? >> >> Presumably not without being arbitrary or capricious. :) If you're >> really worried about it, I can add >> >>> The idea doesn’t seem immediately bad (although I’m not sure I prefer it >>> either) but I think such an important area is not suitable for the “write >>> something simple and let CFJs figure it out” strategy. >> >> What's the fun in that? Seriously, if the CFJs don't have a major >> impact on the future of the game, it's just boring. This way is more >> fun. >> >> >> -Aris > On Jan 8, 2020, at 9:09 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:24 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:12 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> This gets me thinking of a potential big and maybe-interesting-maybe-not >>> big change to the order of things... what if officers presumptively had >>> the >>> ability to rule on their areas of gamestate, in a more active manner >>> than >>> our ratification system? Possibly a bit more of a shift towards a >>> pragmatic >>> philosophy as well. >> >> We've had a couple conversations along similar lines in the last year >> or two and people were generally positive. Specifically two ideas >> came up: (1) making each officer the "primary judge" on disputes >> about their reports, with some language that judges can only overrule >> the officers if their decisions are "arbitrary and capricious" (or >> some other legal standard of choice that we can set precedents about - >> "arbitrary and capricious" is one used in U.S. government >> regulations). (2) dividing the ruleset itself so that rule categories >> are more binding, and rules precedence works as "category then power" >> (e.g. any rule in the "economy" category has precedence over >> "non-economy" category when it comes to coins; then within the economy >> category you look at power, and the officer has some extra abilities >> within their defining category). >> >> I think the only barrier is no one sat down and did the deep work of >> implementation... > > A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a > complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more > fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the judiciary sort out > the details. > > -Aris > -- > Title: Administrative Adjudication > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > Enact a new rule, with power power 3.0, entitled "Administrative > Adjudication", > with the following text: > > Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, > which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, > have the power to resolve bindingly any matter with
Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 11:51 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > The idea doesn’t seem immediately bad (although I’m not sure I prefer it > > either) but I think such an important area is not suitable for the “write > > something simple and let CFJs figure it out” strategy. > > What's the fun in that? Seriously, if the CFJs don't have a major > impact on the future of the game, it's just boring. This way is more > fun. Your proposal wording leaves things pretty similar to how Lindrum pulled off Lindrum World - by declaring that, since the game as a whole had an impact on the minor matter in eir jurisdiction, a request to resolve a minor matter (i.e. in an official capacity) could be extended to a ruling on the whole game - e.g. "since Regulated Actions impact my report, I have domain on whether any regulated actions succeed." At the very, very least, there has to be a process during the Notice period for halting/stopping the memorandum from taking effect. But once you've got that, this becomes (effectively) ratification without N objections or without a judge's objection (whatever the threshold). After all, we could model this entirely under the current ruleset by just agreeing that "we don't object to an Officer ratifying a "false" report if they give a good reason, and we'll call that reason a memorandum". To make it truly "administrative law" level of interesting (did I just type that oxymoron) we need something like precedent to be coded - e.g. that judges defer to officers, or that memoranda are part of a record of precedent (that might get reset), etc. Just a little more than the bare minimum, but enough to give some direction to how this can play out. -G.
Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 14:51, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:59 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO > vague—are these rulings CFJ-like (a means of agreeing on what happened > platonically, but with no actual platonic effect) or ratification-like? How > is arbitrariness and capriciousness defined/judged? What about “official > area of concern?” > > I was afraid someone would say that. I just thought it might be fun to > have major, game altering precedents. Arbitrariness and capriciousness > kind of have to be vague (and is in the US legal system too), and it > wouldn't make much sense to write out the official areas of concern of > each office, though I could (maybe I'll put the current ones in a > comment). I was going to leave the platonic/pragmatic thing for CFJs, > but it would probably be better to just explicitly define it as > platonic. > My feeling was to go into the area of binding *interpretations*, which can't inherently change underlying facts, but become conclusive on questions of law and mixed law and fact (that is, how the law applies to the facts). So for instance, in my recent bid "for Bernie", the ruling would be binding that I was unsuccessful. It would represent a major departure from the rather pure philosophy of platonism that has characterized Agora for years, but one that in actual judicial philosophy is hardly controversial. If we want to do it gradually, probably the first step would be to figure out how to codify this into the ruleset, likely adjusting ratification and inquiry cases appropriately (and possibly codifying an approach to "is history part of the game state"). We could then proceed to devolve some interpretation power onto officers, likely in a very limited extent at first, without dislodging inquiry cases as being the final deciders if needed. Then we could expand the scope of officers' interpretation powers, eventually giving them exclusive primary jurisdiction once we're sure that, as G. warns, we have sufficient protections in place that we can't get Lindrumed (or that if we do, it was a genuinely skilled scam and not just lazily copying Lindrum's arguments). A parallel effort that would likely help would be unifying limited-scope legal documents, along the lines of Jason Cobb's ideas. I don't think the exact ideas there capture what I'm thinking of, but more along the idea of "scoped" law. Regulations are a form of scoped public law, while contracts are private law scoped to the parties. This might allow a framework for e.g. contracts defining things that are like-assets-but-don't-quite-follow-the-asset-rules, or for more experimenting with different types of proposal voting schemes without having to worry about the risk that the core rules become too much under the control of one or more players. One common feature of administrative law is that administrative actors can't make rulings of general importance, such as on the interpretation of a nation's constitution. A good scoping system could be used to help make this explicit, such as by providing some limited scoping of an officer's authority to interpret rules that, while they directly affect the area of the game for which they are responsible, are fundamentally questions about the core rules generally. Alexis
Re: DIS: ratifying honour etc.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 10:07 AM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > > Aris wrote: > > A minimalist proto along the lines of #1 follows. This could be a > > complex interconnected set of 15 rules, but I think it would be more > > fun to leave it as minimal as possible at let the judiciary sort out > > the details. > > > > -Aris > > -- > > Title: Administrative Adjudication > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > Enact a new rule, with power power 3.0, entitled "Administrative > > Adjudication", > > with the following text: > > > > Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, > > which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, > > have the power to resolve bindingly any matter within eir official area of > > concern, insofar as that memorandum is neither arbitrary nor capricious. > > I like the idea too! > > Regarding the implementation, these are very similar to regulations. Why not > reuse the entity class? Something like this: > > Each officer CAN, with notice, enact a memorandum, which is a type of > regulation. A memorandum has the power to resolve bindingly any matter > within its office's area of concern. > > An attempt to enact a memorandum is INEFFECTIVE if it is arbitrary or > capricious. > > /* maybe */ A memorandum is automatically repealed when all matters it > regards are resolved. > > This has the advantage of also automatically tracking memoranda and providing > mechanisms to amend or repeal them. TBH, I was thinking that they would be mostly instantaneous. However, you're right that some might not be. I'll allow both. -Aris > Gaelan wrote: > > I’m intrigued by the idea. I’m a little concerned that it’s TOO vague— > > are these rulings CFJ-like (a means of agreeing on what happened > > platonically, but with no actual platonic effect) or ratification- > > like? How is arbitrariness and capriciousness defined/judged? What > > about “official area of concern?” > > My understanding of the original proto was that the rulings were supposed to > be binding, i.e. capable of modifying the gamestate, and that the other > things were intentionally left vague to allow judges to rule in the best > interests of the game. > > Gaelan wrote: > > This seems like a particularly bad place for CFJ hell. When we > > inevitably end up with a dispute over whether a memorandum is valid, > > can that dispute itself be resolved by memorandum, by either the > > original officeholder or the Arbitor? > > This is a good point - if judges are supposed to have authority over > memoranda, the rule needs some way to stop memoranda from having authority > over judges. Unsure of the best way of doing that. > > -twg
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Neither your votes, nor the promotor report, were to the public forum. Additionally, I ask that you reconsider your vote on 8281. I don’t have a force-through scam up my sleeve, and I would like to find out if my scam works. As far as I know, the rule should be fairly harmless. Gaelan > On Jan 8, 2020, at 11:50 AM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Tue., Jan. 7, 2020, 23:34 Aris Merchant via agora-discussion, < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> 8280 Murphy, Jason Cobb 3.0 Resolve the troubles v1.1 >> > AGAINST > >> 8281 Gaelan 1.0 Nothing to see here, Rule 1030 v2 >> > AGAINST > >> 8282 Falsifian1.0 Let's do this the hard way v1.1 >> > AGAINST > >> 8283 Alexis 3.0 Ex Post Ribbon >> > FOR > >> 8284 Alexis 3.0 Line-Item Power >> > PRESENT > >> 8285 Alexis 3.0 Line-Item Roulette >> > FOR > >> 8286 Aris 1.0 I Forbid Vetos! >> > PRESENT
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
Yeah, the rules need to handle open-ended contracts better IMO. Contracts are
written as entities that can gain and lose members at will, but there’s no
clear way to bootstrap a contract.
Gaelan
> On Jan 8, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 11:38, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> Gaelan wrote:
>>> TTttPF
>>>
>>> Also, I create the following contract: {
>>> Any person may become a party of this contract to act on Gaelan’s behalf
>> as described below.
>>>
>>> Any person may act on Gaelan’s behalf to perform a series of actions,
>> subject to the following conditions:
>>> * Gaelan attempted to perform those exact actions (verbatim) in a
>> message to a discussion forum
>>> * The message to the discussion forum occurred within the past 24 hours
>>> * Gaelan's message was clearly an attempt to perform actions by sending
>> a message to a public forum (and, specifically, it was > not labelled as a
>> draft of a later public action, such as a “proto” proposal)
>>> * No actions have been performed by Gaelan, or on eir behalf, after the
>> message to the discussion forum
>>>
>>> Gaelan may terminate this contract at any time, by announcement.
>>> }
>>
>> I join/agree to this contract.
>>
>> -twg
>>
>
> I CFJ { As a result of the quoted messages, Gaelan and twg are parties to a
> contract with the text in Gaelan's message. }
>
> Arguments: The rules explicitly prohibit a contract with only party.
> Therefore, even if Gaelan's ISTID would succeed, e could not have made a
> contract containing only one party, and if e did, the rules would have
> destroyed it. On the other hand, e clearly expressed the intent to be bound
> by the contract, and therefore arguably twg's acceptance was actually what
> brought such a contract into existence.
>
> Alexis
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:07, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Neither your votes, nor the promotor report, were to the public forum. > > Additionally, I ask that you reconsider your vote on 8281. I don’t have a > force-through scam up my sleeve, and I would like to find out if my scam > works. As far as I know, the rule should be fairly harmless. > > Gaelan > I'm not voting for an obvious scam if I don't get something from it!
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
TBH, there's no real reason to disallow 1-member contracts. It doesn't
make sense under real world contract law, but Agoran contracts can
also function like corporations.
-Aris
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:10 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Yeah, the rules need to handle open-ended contracts better IMO. Contracts are
> written as entities that can gain and lose members at will, but there’s no
> clear way to bootstrap a contract.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Jan 8, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 11:38, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Gaelan wrote:
> >>> TTttPF
> >>>
> >>> Also, I create the following contract: {
> >>> Any person may become a party of this contract to act on Gaelan’s behalf
> >> as described below.
> >>>
> >>> Any person may act on Gaelan’s behalf to perform a series of actions,
> >> subject to the following conditions:
> >>> * Gaelan attempted to perform those exact actions (verbatim) in a
> >> message to a discussion forum
> >>> * The message to the discussion forum occurred within the past 24 hours
> >>> * Gaelan's message was clearly an attempt to perform actions by sending
> >> a message to a public forum (and, specifically, it was > not labelled as a
> >> draft of a later public action, such as a “proto” proposal)
> >>> * No actions have been performed by Gaelan, or on eir behalf, after the
> >> message to the discussion forum
> >>>
> >>> Gaelan may terminate this contract at any time, by announcement.
> >>> }
> >>
> >> I join/agree to this contract.
> >>
> >> -twg
> >>
> >
> > I CFJ { As a result of the quoted messages, Gaelan and twg are parties to a
> > contract with the text in Gaelan's message. }
> >
> > Arguments: The rules explicitly prohibit a contract with only party.
> > Therefore, even if Gaelan's ISTID would succeed, e could not have made a
> > contract containing only one party, and if e did, the rules would have
> > destroyed it. On the other hand, e clearly expressed the intent to be bound
> > by the contract, and therefore arguably twg's acceptance was actually what
> > brought such a contract into existence.
> >
> > Alexis
>
DIS: [MUD] MUD Opening!
The MUD is now open. The server is at agora.ddns.net Port 4000 is telnet. Port 4001 is HTTP. Port 4004 is SSH. Port 4005 is webclient-websocket. -Aris
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
Well, the current contracts rules are very broken. But that's ok! :P
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:21, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> TBH, there's no real reason to disallow 1-member contracts. It doesn't
> make sense under real world contract law, but Agoran contracts can
> also function like corporations.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:10 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, the rules need to handle open-ended contracts better IMO.
> Contracts are written as entities that can gain and lose members at will,
> but there’s no clear way to bootstrap a contract.
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Jan 8, 2020, at 12:34 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 11:38, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business <
> > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Gaelan wrote:
> > >>> TTttPF
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, I create the following contract: {
> > >>> Any person may become a party of this contract to act on Gaelan’s
> behalf
> > >> as described below.
> > >>>
> > >>> Any person may act on Gaelan’s behalf to perform a series of actions,
> > >> subject to the following conditions:
> > >>> * Gaelan attempted to perform those exact actions (verbatim) in a
> > >> message to a discussion forum
> > >>> * The message to the discussion forum occurred within the past 24
> hours
> > >>> * Gaelan's message was clearly an attempt to perform actions by
> sending
> > >> a message to a public forum (and, specifically, it was > not labelled
> as a
> > >> draft of a later public action, such as a “proto” proposal)
> > >>> * No actions have been performed by Gaelan, or on eir behalf, after
> the
> > >> message to the discussion forum
> > >>>
> > >>> Gaelan may terminate this contract at any time, by announcement.
> > >>> }
> > >>
> > >> I join/agree to this contract.
> > >>
> > >> -twg
> > >>
> > >
> > > I CFJ { As a result of the quoted messages, Gaelan and twg are parties
> to a
> > > contract with the text in Gaelan's message. }
> > >
> > > Arguments: The rules explicitly prohibit a contract with only party.
> > > Therefore, even if Gaelan's ISTID would succeed, e could not have made
> a
> > > contract containing only one party, and if e did, the rules would have
> > > destroyed it. On the other hand, e clearly expressed the intent to be
> bound
> > > by the contract, and therefore arguably twg's acceptance was actually
> what
> > > brought such a contract into existence.
> > >
> > > Alexis
> >
>
Re: DIS: Draft: Contract Patency
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 6:35 PM James Cook wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 06:11, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > Here's a draft that separates out contracts from pacts, and creates an > > office of Notary to track contracts and pledges. NOTE: Volunteers are > > needed for Notary! Apply now! > > I really like the idea of tracking pledges and contracts. A few > comments on the proto: > > * To address Jason Cobb's concern about publishing a "this may or may > not be a contract", how about saying something isn't a contract until > all parties have publicly consented to the text and list of parties > within a 4-day window? (The 4-day window is to make it easier to keep > track of whether the condition has been met.) (Is there any similar > issue with amending contracts? It seems to work as written, but I'm > not certain.) I thought of another solution, which is to require that it be publicly certified. > * Should the Notary's reported list of pledges and contracts be > self-ratifying? If it isn't, we're missing an opportunity to reduce > uncertainty. I'm worried about scams. > * Why is the new Contracts rule power 3.0? The old one (renamed to > Pledges) is only 2.5. Fixed by changing it to 2.5. > * I'm a little worried about "without objection" counting as consent. > I think what bugs me is that "consent" is used in different ways in > the rules. Often it's modified by some adjective, like "willful", > which would probably mean "without objection" doesn't count, but it > still seems messy to use the same word for all these different things. > Not offering a solution, mostly just thinking out loud. I'll remove it. > * CAN the transitional period be ended? Maybe I'm being overly literal > here, but I could imagine someone reading that rule and wondering > whether when it was written, it relied on a separate rule (now > repealed) governing when "transitional periods" CAN be ended by > announcement. Fixed.
DIS: [Draft] Contract Patency v2
I think this addresses everyone's concerns. Comments are welcome. -Aris --- Title: Contract Patency v2 Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Jason Cobb, Falsifian Amend Rule 2519, "Consent", to read in full: A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if: 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action; 2. e is party to a contract indicating eir consent; 3. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to take place or assented to it taking place. Amend Rule 2124, "Agoran Satisfaction", by removing the text '(syn. "consent")'. Amend Rule 1742, "Contracts", to read in full: Any group of one 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 pact. A pact may be modified, including by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all existing parties. A pact may also terminate with the consent of all parties. A pact automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls below one. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a pact without eir consent. Parties to a pact governed by the rules SHALL act in accordance with that pact. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction between the pact and any other pact, or between the pact and the rules. Retitle Rule 1742 to "Pacts". Enact a new power 2.5 rule, entitled "Contracts", with the following text: A pact is a contract if its full provisions and list of parties have been made available in public, along with a certification or adequate proof of their accuracy and completeness, unless its provisions stated upon each occasion where it was posted that it cannot become a contract. 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. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any provision of a contract that requires information that is not publicly or generally available to be interpreted is without effect insofar as it does. A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as permitted by the contract's provisions: * Act on behalf of another party to the contract. * By announcement, revoke destructible assets from the contract. * By announcement, transfer liquid assets from the contract to a specified recipient. For the avoidance of doubt, any entity that was a contract before the passage of this proposal is a pact after the passage of this proposal; if it would not otherwise be so, it is destroyed and recreated as a pact with properties as close as possible to those it had before. Amend rule 2450, "Pledges", by adding at the end of the first paragraph "A pledge ceases to exist at the end of its time window." Destroy every pledge with an expired time window. Enact a new power 2.0 rule, entitled "The Notary", with the following text: The Notary is an office. The Notary's weekly report contains: 1. every pledge, along with its title, creator, time window, time of creation, and time of expiry; and 2. every contract, with its title, full provisions, and parties. If the Notary is required to report a title, but none has been otherwise publicly provided, e CAN select one. The transitional period lasts for at least 90 days after this rule comes into force; thereafter, any player CAN end it by announcement. A pledge or contract is invisible if it was created before this rule came into force, and has not been publicly posted since this rule came into force. During the transitional period, the Notary NEED NOT report any invisible contract or pledge. When the transitional period is ended, each invisible contract or pledge ceases to exist in the order they were created, and then this rule amends itself by deleting this paragraph. Make the Notary.
Re: DIS: [Draft] Contract Patency v2
On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 14:31 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > I think this addresses everyone's concerns. Comments are welcome. [snip] > Amend Rule 2519, "Consent", to read in full: > A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if: > > 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently > publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action; That last comma looks out of place. [snip] > Amend Rule 1742, "Contracts", to read in full: > > Any group of one 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. Likely scammable; there's no requirement on what the persons are consenting to. You need to be clear that consent is required to the specific action of creating a pact as an original member, and also that consent is required to the specific action of joining a pact, and that it's impossible to create a pact with someone as a member if that person does not consent to the creation. I don't think this is clear enough at the moment (and historically, a contracts rule that doesn't explicitly handle both the case of creation and the case of a change nearly always ends up getting scammed). [snip] > Enact a new power 2.5 rule, entitled "Contracts", with the following > text: Does this actually need a power >= 2 for any reason? Contract law used to be at power 1.7, and never had any real issue there. Keeping the power low would likely be beneficial because contract law has historically been one of the easiest areas of the ruleset to scam, and scam protections have historically worked much better against power < 2 scams than they have against power >= 2 scams. > A pact is a contract if its full provisions and list of parties have > been made available in public, along with a certification or adequate > proof of their accuracy and completeness, unless its provisions > stated upon each occasion where it was posted that it cannot become a > contract. What about existing contracts that have previously been made available in public, but since amended so that, e.g., their list of parties is now publicly unavailable? [snip] > A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions > as permitted by the contract's provisions: > > * Act on behalf of another party to the contract. > > * By announcement, revoke destructible assets from the contract. > > * By announcement, transfer liquid assets from the contract to a > specified recipient. I have an automatic uneasy reaction to anything that inherently needs to be able to platonically evaluate arbitrary conditions that can be specified without going through a proposal process or the like, especially if there are no requirements on explicitness, noncircularity, or the like. Even if there isn't an actual paradox available, you'll likely see paradox attempts for months, most of fairly low quality, possibly to the point of dominating gameplay. -- ais523
Re: DIS: [Draft] Contract Patency v2
On 1/8/20 5:42 PM, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote: > I have an automatic uneasy reaction to anything that inherently needs > to be able to platonically evaluate arbitrary conditions that can be > specified without going through a proposal process or the like, > especially if there are no requirements on explicitness, > noncircularity, or the like. Even if there isn't an actual paradox > available, you'll likely see paradox attempts for months, most of > fairly low quality, possibly to the point of dominating gameplay. I think paradox attempts in this wording have been summarily rejected in CFJs 3761 and 3768. Links: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3761 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3768 -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Draft] Contract Patency v2
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 2:42 PM AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 14:31 -0800, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I think this addresses everyone's concerns. Comments are welcome. > [snip] > > Amend Rule 2519, "Consent", to read in full: > > A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if: > > > > 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently > > publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action; > That last comma looks out of place. Looks right to me, based on my intuitive comma placement rules. > [snip] > > > Amend Rule 1742, "Contracts", to read in full: > > > > Any group of one 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. > Likely scammable; there's no requirement on what the persons are > consenting to. You need to be clear that consent is required to the > specific action of creating a pact as an original member, and also that > consent is required to the specific action of joining a pact, and that > it's impossible to create a pact with someone as a member if that > person does not consent to the creation. I don't think this is clear > enough at the moment (and historically, a contracts rule that doesn't > explicitly handle both the case of creation and the case of a change > nearly always ends up getting scammed). Did you read the "It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a pact without eir consent"? I think that covers it. > [snip] > > Enact a new power 2.5 rule, entitled "Contracts", with the following > > text: > Does this actually need a power >= 2 for any reason? Contract law used > to be at power 1.7, and never had any real issue there. > > Keeping the power low would likely be beneficial because contract law > has historically been one of the easiest areas of the ruleset to scam, > and scam protections have historically worked much better against power > < 2 scams than they have against power >= 2 scams. Acting on behalf is secured at power 2.0; beyond that, contracts are massive enough that they deserve their own island, so midway between 2.0 and 3.0. Contracts need access to the acting on behalf machinery, and unfortunately, that's what makes them most scammable. > > A pact is a contract if its full provisions and list of parties have > > been made available in public, along with a certification or adequate > > proof of their accuracy and completeness, unless its provisions > > stated upon each occasion where it was posted that it cannot become a > > contract. > What about existing contracts that have previously been made available > in public, but since amended so that, e.g., their list of parties is > now publicly unavailable? I changed the visibility rules so that the requirements for visibility are the same as for creation; the problem will thus resolve itself at the end of the transitional period. > [snip] > > A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions > > as permitted by the contract's provisions: > > > > * Act on behalf of another party to the contract. > > > > * By announcement, revoke destructible assets from the contract. > > > > * By announcement, transfer liquid assets from the contract to a > > specified recipient. > I have an automatic uneasy reaction to anything that inherently needs > to be able to platonically evaluate arbitrary conditions that can be > specified without going through a proposal process or the like, > especially if there are no requirements on explicitness, > noncircularity, or the like. Even if there isn't an actual paradox > available, you'll likely see paradox attempts for months, most of > fairly low quality, possibly to the point of dominating gameplay. I made it "explicitly and unambiguously permitted". That should cover it right? -Aris
Re: DIS: [Draft] Contract Patency v2
First of all, I haven’t looked through all of the original thread, so let me know if something’s already been discussed to death. I’m aware that I’m suggesting some big changes late in the game, and I’m not *that* unhappy with the proposal as it stands, so I would probably vote FOR even as it is. Gaelan > On Jan 8, 2020, at 2:31 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I think this addresses everyone's concerns. Comments are welcome. > > -Aris > --- > > Title: Contract Patency v2 > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: Jason Cobb, Falsifian > > > Amend Rule 2519, "Consent", to read in full: > A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if: > > 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently > publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action; > 2. e is party to a contract indicating eir consent; > 3. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the > action to take place or assented to it taking place. An explicit “or” wouldn’t hurt. 3 seems a little scary, but maybe it’s fine. Also, its the expansion of contractual power here it might be worth looking at whether we need an official mechanism for getting out of a mousetrap. > > Amend Rule 2124, "Agoran Satisfaction", by removing the text '(syn. > "consent")'. > > Amend Rule 1742, "Contracts", to read in full: > > Any group of one 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 pact. A pact may be modified, including > by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all existing > parties. A pact may also terminate with the consent of all > parties. A pact automatically terminates if the number of > parties to it falls below one. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to > become a party to a pact without eir consent. > > Parties to a pact governed by the rules SHALL act in > accordance with that pact. This obligation is not impaired > by contradiction between the pact and any other pact, or > between the pact and the rules. > > Retitle Rule 1742 to "Pacts". > > Enact a new power 2.5 rule, entitled "Contracts", with the following text: > A pact is a contract if its full provisions and list of parties have been > made available in public, along with a certification or adequate proof of > their accuracy and completeness, unless its provisions stated upon each > occasion where it was posted that it cannot become a contract. > > 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. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any > provision of a contract that requires information that is not publicly or > generally available to be interpreted is without effect insofar as it does. I believe this means we lose the ability to implement hidden-identity games (Mafia, Resistance style things) by contract. Do we care? > > A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions > as permitted by the contract's provisions: > > * Act on behalf of another party to the contract. > > * By announcement, revoke destructible assets from the contract. > > * By announcement, transfer liquid assets from the contract to a specified >recipient. > > For the avoidance of doubt, any entity that was a contract before the passage > of this proposal is a pact after the passage of this proposal; if it would > not otherwise be so, it is destroyed and recreated as a pact with properties > as close as possible to those it had before. > > Amend rule 2450, "Pledges", by adding at the end of the first paragraph > "A pledge ceases to exist at the end of its time window." Any reason pledges still need to exist? One-person contracts seem to fill that niche. > > Destroy every pledge with an expired time window. > > Enact a new power 2.0 rule, entitled "The Notary", with the following text: > > The Notary is an office. > > The Notary's weekly report contains: > > 1. every pledge, along with its title, creator, time window, time of > creation, and time of expiry; and > 2. every contract, with its title, full provisions, and parties. > > If the Notary is required to report a title, but none has been otherwise > publicly provided, e CAN select one. > > The transitional period lasts for at least 90 days after this rule comes > into force; thereafter, any player CAN end it by announcement. > A pledge or contract is invisible if it was created before this rule came > into force, and has not been publicly posted since this rule came into force. > During the transitional period, the Notary NEED NOT report any invisible > contract or pledge. When the transitional period is ended, each invisible > contract or pledge ceases to exist in the order they were creat
Re: DIS: [Draft] Contract Patency v2
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:16 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > > First of all, I haven’t looked through all of the original thread, so let me > know if something’s already been discussed to death. I’m aware that I’m > suggesting some big changes late in the game, and I’m not *that* unhappy with > the proposal as it stands, so I would probably vote FOR even as it is. > > Gaelan > > > On Jan 8, 2020, at 2:31 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > > I think this addresses everyone's concerns. Comments are welcome. > > > > -Aris > > --- > > > > Title: Contract Patency v2 > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: Jason Cobb, Falsifian > > > > > > Amend Rule 2519, "Consent", to read in full: > > A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if: > > > > 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently > > publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action; > > 2. e is party to a contract indicating eir consent; > > 3. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the > > action to take place or assented to it taking place. > > An explicit “or” wouldn’t hurt. 3 seems a little scary, but maybe it’s fine. > Also, its the expansion of contractual power here it might be worth looking > at whether we need an official mechanism for getting out of a mousetrap. Added. I'm not sure how this makes mousetraps substantially more dangerous, the only problem I can think of is that it may make them harder to guard against. Maybe I should make it a "a contract explicitly indicating"? > > > > Amend Rule 2124, "Agoran Satisfaction", by removing the text '(syn. > > "consent")'. > > > > Amend Rule 1742, "Contracts", to read in full: > > > > Any group of one 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 pact. A pact may be modified, including > > by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all existing > > parties. A pact may also terminate with the consent of all > > parties. A pact automatically terminates if the number of > > parties to it falls below one. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to > > become a party to a pact without eir consent. > > > > Parties to a pact governed by the rules SHALL act in > > accordance with that pact. This obligation is not impaired > > by contradiction between the pact and any other pact, or > > between the pact and the rules. > > > > Retitle Rule 1742 to "Pacts". > > > > Enact a new power 2.5 rule, entitled "Contracts", with the following text: > > A pact is a contract if its full provisions and list of parties have been > > made available in public, along with a certification or adequate proof of > > their accuracy and completeness, unless its provisions stated upon each > > occasion where it was posted that it cannot become a contract. > > > > 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. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any > > provision of a contract that requires information that is not publicly or > > generally available to be interpreted is without effect insofar as it does. > > I believe this means we lose the ability to implement hidden-identity games > (Mafia, Resistance style things) by contract. Do we care? Ugh, yes we do. I moved it into the below sentence, which will now read "A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as explicitly and unambiguously permitted by the contract's provisions, without reference any information that is neither publicly nor generally available:" > > > > A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions > > as permitted by the contract's provisions: > > > > * Act on behalf of another party to the contract. > > > > * By announcement, revoke destructible assets from the contract. > > > > * By announcement, transfer liquid assets from the contract to a specified > >recipient. > > > > For the avoidance of doubt, any entity that was a contract before the > > passage > > of this proposal is a pact after the passage of this proposal; if it would > > not otherwise be so, it is destroyed and recreated as a pact with properties > > as close as possible to those it had before. > > > > Amend rule 2450, "Pledges", by adding at the end of the first paragraph > > "A pledge ceases to exist at the end of its time window." > > Any reason pledges still need to exist? One-person contracts seem to fill > that niche. Several. Firstly, you can just consent to destroying the contract. Second, they have a bunch of nice rules for expiration, which doesn't make as much sense for contracts. > > > > Destroy every pledge with an expired time window. > > > > Enact a new power 2.0 rule, entitled "The N
DIS: Contract Patency v3
Gaelan's comments made me think of a way to tear out pacts completely. It's a bit less backwards compatible, but also vastly simplified. -Aris --- Title: Contract Patency v3 Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Falsifian Amend Rule 2519, "Consent", to read in full: A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if, at the time the action took place: 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action; 2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and unambiguously indicates eir consent; or 3. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to take place or assented to it taking place. Amend Rule 2124, "Agoran Satisfaction", by removing the text '(syn. "consent")'. Amend Rule 1742, "Contracts", to read in full: Any group of one or more consenting persons (the parties) may publicly 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. A contract may be modified, including by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all existing parties. A contract may also be terminated with the consent of all parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls below one. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a contract without eir consent. Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or between the contract and the rules. 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. The portion of a contract's provisions that can be interpreted with reference only to information that is either publicly or generally available are known as its body; the remainder of the provisions are known as the annex. A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as explicitly and unambiguously permitted by the contract's body: * Act on behalf of another party to the contract. * By announcement, revoke destructible assets from the contract. * By announcement, transfer liquid assets from the contract to a specified recipient. Amend rule 2450, "Pledges", by adding at the end of the first paragraph "A pledge ceases to exist at the end of its time window." Destroy every pledge with an expired time window. Enact a new power 2.0 rule, entitled "The Notary", with the following text: The Notary is an office. The Notary's weekly report contains: 1. every pledge, along with its title, creator, time window, time of creation, and time of expiry; and 2. every contract, with its title, full provisions, and parties. If the Notary is required to report a title, but none has been otherwise publicly provided, e CAN select one. The transitional period lasts for at least 90 days after this rule comes into force; thereafter, any player CAN end it by announcement. A pledge or contract is invisible if it was created before this rule came into force, and has not been publicly posted since this rule came into force; for a contract, this publication must include its full provisions and list of parties, along with a certification or adequate proof of their accuracy and completeness. During the transitional period, the Notary NEED NOT report any invisible contract or pledge. When the transitional period is ended, each invisible contract or pledge ceases to exist in the order they were created, and then this rule amends itself by deleting this paragraph. Make the Notary.
Re: DIS: [Draft] Contract Patency v2
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action; That last comma looks out of place. Looks right to me, based on my intuitive comma placement rules. I don't think it's strictly wrong, but it would be easier to read if you moved the wedged subpart to the end. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: [Draft] Administrative Adjudication v2
I made several changes, including clarifying that the judiciary has judicial review over memoranda. I also decided to go in the direction of making memoranda purely interpretative, because I have other plans for gamestate changes that have more safeguards. I've allowed them to be like CFJs or regulations, depending on what's called for. I also reduced the power to 2.0, to put them on the same level as CFJs. And so on. In short, there are a lot of changes, and it may just be worth rereading. -Aris --- Title: Administrative Adjudication v2 Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Aris Co-authors: Gaelan, twg, G., Jason Cobb [The intended effect of this rule is to give all officers optional jurisdiction over their area of the game. They may still, and in all likelihood will, still allow the judiciary to decide many cases. Even if they don't, the judges still have considerable leeway to limit administrative overreach.] Enact a new rule, with power 2.0, entitled "Administrative Adjudication", with the following text: Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, resolve bindingly, by interpretation of law and fact, such matters within the officer's area of concern as it may specify, insofar as it is neither arbitrary nor capricious. A memorandum may take effect immediately, acting like a judicial opinion to resolve matters of present concern. Alternatively, it may be a regulation of the office from which it issues in which case it shall be in effect continuously until it is repealed and be amendable and repealable in like manner to its issuance. No memorandum may determine that it or another memorandum is valid, or otherwise obviate the power of judicial review of memoranda. Judicial authorities shall, insofar as the memoranda concerned are proper, defer to them as to matters of both fact and law. [The Rulekeepor is willing to take on this responsibility, and it makes considerably more sense than making the officer include a random section in their report; instead, it keeps all of the rules and regulations together in one easily accessible place.] Amend Rule 2493, Regulations, by changing the text "Regulations are tracked in their Promulgator's weekly report." to read "Regulations are tracked by the Rulekeepor in a fashion similar to rules." [Suggested scopes of current offices: ADoP - Officer elections, whether reports were published, who holds what office Arbitor - The existence and assignment of CFJs, but not their resolution Assessor - Votes, resolutions Comptrollor - Vetos Distributor - The operation of the lists Herald - Patent titles, honour, the birthday tournament Prime Minister - Anything in the jurisdiction of multiple officers Promotor - Proposals in the pool, distributions Referee - Fines, but e can't make an invalid fine valid Registrar - Registration & deregistration, zombie auctions, Rulekeepor - The state of the rules (e.g. whether proposals worked) Speaker - Head of State stuff (i.e. nothing) Tailor - Ribbons Treasuror - Assets ]
Re: DIS: [Draft] Contract Patency v2
On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 6:28 PM Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > >>> 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently > >>> publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action; > >> That last comma looks out of place. > > > > Looks right to me, based on my intuitive comma placement rules. > > I don't think it's strictly wrong, but it would be easier to read if you > moved the wedged subpart to the end. You're right! Done! -Aris
Re: DIS: [Draft] Administrative Adjudication v2
On 1/8/2020 6:40 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: Each officer has the power to, with notice, issue a memorandum, Do you think "has the power to" is a reasonable synonym for CAN - it's kind of an overloaded word that we don't use that way currently (and "CAN" is simplier than "has the power to"). which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, resolve bindingly, by interpretation of law and fact, such matters within "shall" (even uncapitalized) implies SHALL and that concept doesn't make sense in the context of "shall resolve". also, why use the word "bindingly" or "binding" at all? (again, an unclear concept). Later on you use "proper" as a standard which you also don't define. How about something like: Each officer CAN, with notice, issue a memorandum consisting of a public document that interprets the law and/or facts as they pertain to that officer's area of concern. A memorandum is proper if and only if it is neither arbitrary nor capricious and is restricted to the officer's area of concern. [a readability suggestion: substitute 'domain' for 'area of concern'] A memorandum may take effect Why the 'may' instead of just 'takes effect'? immediately, acting like a judicial opinion to resolve matters of present concern. Alternatively, it may be a regulation of the office from which it issues in which case it shall be in effect continuously until it is repealed and be amendable and repealable in like manner to its issuance. What controls whether it's a judicial opinion or a regulation? And if a memorandum is a regulation, is the With Notice method meant to be in addition to the R2493 methods of creating and repealing? To add: people should be able to formally request a ruling-by-memorandum in a manner that requires a timely response, thus making it a formal method to invoke for resolving disputes. -G.
Re: DIS: [Draft] Administrative Adjudication v2
On 1/8/2020 8:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: which shall consist in a public document and shall, once issued, resolve bindingly, by interpretation of law and fact, such matters within Mulling it over more, what exactly do you mean by "interpreting facts"? In the current context of the Troubles, this proposal arose because we were talking about ratifying false facts to be true (as long as the result was the "fair" outcome). So are you meaning that this has the same/similar effect as ratification? If so, it's a very newspeak way to say it: "I'm not lying, I'm interpreting facts!" And even with judicial overview, it's really flipping our interpretations around: Officer: "Because it would lead to a fairer outcome, I assert these false facts to be true." CFJ: "Oh no they're not!" Judge: "I agree with the officer that it would be fairer if we ignore the actual facts, and that the officer's policy is clear and evenly applied, so not arbitrary and capricious. So in spite of the facts in front of my eyes I defer to the officer and false=true." -G.
DIS: [draft] procedural ratification
Proto: the Reset Button #include memorandum Create the following Rule entitled "the Reset Button": If the rules define a public document as self-ratifying, then a person REQUIRED to publish that document CAN ratify that document without 3 objections, provided e includes, as part of the specification of the intended ratification, a proper memorandum describing why the ratification is in the best interests of the game. This is a RECOMMENDED method for resetting aspects of the game in a fair and equitable manner following the discovery and/or exploitation of unintended loopholes within the Rules, whether the exploitation was accidental or purposeful. [ Basically codifying what I suggested doing with Notices of Honour - if there's a breakage, make it easier to ratify the fix with a bias towards equity, and by codifying it, making it a more regularly acceptable solution. By including "purposeful", it covers scams; e.g. with Jason Cobb's 18,000 coins - the scammer would have at least the 4 day objection period to enjoy eir earnings or convert it to a win[*] or whatever. [*]since winning and patent titles aren't self-ratifying, they would get to keep those as rewards for scams. ]
Re: DIS: [draft] procedural ratification
Like the idea. Few thoughts:
If I create the contact {Gaelan SHALL publish a Tailor’s report weekly}, does
this let me issue memoranda about ribbons?
Also, this may be a minority view, but I believe scams are part of the game,
and we shouldn’t make a habit of reverting them by default. Of course, there
are exceptions where the scam makes a mess that’s a pain for everyone else
(like me and CuddleBeam’s agency namespace DoS a while back).
Gaelan
> On Jan 8, 2020, at 11:12 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
>
> Proto: the Reset Button
>
> #include memorandum
>
> Create the following Rule entitled "the Reset Button":
>
> If the rules define a public document as self-ratifying, then a
> person REQUIRED to publish that document CAN ratify that document
> without 3 objections, provided e includes, as part of the
> specification of the intended ratification, a proper memorandum
> describing why the ratification is in the best interests of the game.
>
> This is a RECOMMENDED method for resetting aspects of the game in a
> fair and equitable manner following the discovery and/or exploitation
> of unintended loopholes within the Rules, whether the exploitation
> was accidental or purposeful.
>
> [
>
> Basically codifying what I suggested doing with Notices of Honour - if
> there's a breakage, make it easier to ratify the fix with a bias towards
> equity, and by codifying it, making it a more regularly acceptable solution.
>
> By including "purposeful", it covers scams; e.g. with Jason Cobb's 18,000
> coins - the scammer would have at least the 4 day objection period to enjoy
> eir earnings or convert it to a win[*] or whatever.
>
> [*]since winning and patent titles aren't self-ratifying, they would get to
> keep those as rewards for scams.
>
> ]
Re: DIS: [draft] procedural ratification
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: By including "purposeful", it covers scams; e.g. with Jason Cobb's 18,000 coins - the scammer would have at least the 4 day objection period to enjoy eir earnings or convert it to a win[*] or whatever. [*]since winning and patent titles aren't self-ratifying, they would get to keep those as rewards for scams. Winning and patent titles can still be lost as a side effect of ratifying a document published before they happen, when that removes a prerequisite for their award. Greetings, Ørjan.
