On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, comex wrote:
> So it's a clash of two Agoran traditions: the tradition of
> interpreting the Rules literally and applauding loopholes and
> unintended side effects of Rules, and the tradition of interpreting
> the Rules in the best interests of Agora to let the game continue--
> see the Black Repeals, or really the Agoran reaction to many scams...
> But this is not a scam. Although "Take it to Equity!" may have
> created some urgency in the matter, I think we have the time to afford
> ruling the case based solely on the merits, and-- if it is what the
> majority of Agorans want-- to fix the loophole, or R101.
To the extent that is is broken, the break came when Zefram made Equity
Decisions into contracts (rather than being straightforward Imposed Duties
that they were before), but removed the notion that rules were an
overarching contract (if the Rules are a contract, Rules changes and new
duties are a Contract Change not a New Contract). Everything since then
has been bandaids really. The latter fix isn't needed but fixing the
former is trivial. [It would be easier if Orders weren't gone, too].
No urgency, the Repeal 101 will be a good referendum on Which Way To Go
but for timing, here's the alternative.
I submit the following Proposal: Simple Equity Imposition, Power 1.7:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Amend Rule 2169 by replacing:
When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a
judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past
week (or all parties to the contract have approved that
judgement), the judgement is in effect as a binding agreement
between the parties. In this role it is subject to modification
or termination by the usual processes governing binding
agreements.
An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity
case within the past week CAN be initiated by any party to the
contract in question by announcement.
with:
When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a
judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past
week (or all parties to the contract have approved that
judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of
regulated requirements imposed by this Rule.
Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of
an enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are
satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability
to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise
perform.
If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this
Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party's behalf
to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the party may
be subjected to a criminal punishment other than DISCHARGE for
violating this Rule, but not both.
The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a
specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the
requirement of parties to act as specified.
An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity
case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question
by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is
appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was
fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals
judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no
longer applicable due to changed circumstances.
[Not intended to fix the issues of changing parties in agreements
btw, that's a separate issue].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-Goethe
