On Sun, 2009-05-03 at 08:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sun, 3 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > > A public message claiming to be a game-defined entity (e.g. a > > distribution of proposals) is not generally that entity, but must > > match the circumstances defined for that entity (e.g. being sent > > by the Promotor). > > This would be very nice to have. The question right now is, can we > infer this in the current ruleset? Right now there are two types of > action: > > 1. The player is authorized to act via a type of publication. > > 2. Rules define a certain type of Notice as a publication containing > certain information. Player acts by posting said Notice. Notice triggers > actions. > > In spite of my earlier example, "Proposal Distribution" is actually the > first (as are most actions) as the rules say that the Promotor > "distributes a proposal". > > Interestingly, I don't know what sort of regulations the second type > has at all. R2125 covers actions. If the only action is "publishing > certain information" (and any publication of said information is > automatically such a Notice) that's covered by R101; other rules may it > ILLEGAL but not IMPOSSIBLE. But if we take the view that what's actually > happening is that an Entity (the Notice) is being created[*], then the > creation is a regulated act, and Rules may make it IMPOSSIBLE to create > the entity. I don't see anything in the rules generally to decide > between these two interpretations (other than the usual "tradition and > good of the game").
I think, at the same time, we should fix such confusions such as submitting a partnership as a proposal, to make clear whether that sort of thing works or not. IMO, we should divorce game-defined entities from the actual text of messages; instead of publishing an NoV, for instance, we should cause players to announce that they create an NoV with particular information, and then the NoV comes into existence (which is different from the NoV being published in the first place; with such changes, the NoV would not itself be the message). Doing likewise for contracts, proposals, etc, would probably make matters a lot clearer. /me goes off to ponder whether amending a contract causes the original message in which the contract was announced to retroactively change, although e's pretty much positive it doesn't. -- ais523
