On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:50 PM, warrigal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 6:47 AM, Elliott Hird >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Messing with people's contracts from inside their framework is fine. >>> >>> Messing them up via proposal is not. >> >> Why? The whole point of making an R1728 contract is to let the >> contract be governed by Agora. Messing with things by proposal is a >> long tradition in Agora. > > I thought the whole point of making an R1728 contract was to let the > contract be *enforced* by Agora. Destroying R1728 contracts sounds to > me like a good way to get people to lose faith in the system.
The term used by R1728 is in fact "governed", not "enforced". In any case, this is the reason for my proposal that would prevent future proposals from meddling in this manner at AI 1. If AI 2 is still too volatile, then I suggest you either propose making it even more difficult, or you should not make R1728 contracts. -root
