I'd be happy to review the latest version, but I don't want to use the last version because I won't know what has changed. Could you share your current copy? ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Oct 14, 2017, at 5:46 PM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 00:29 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>
>> A lot of feedback here. Much of it is typo corrections, but not all of
>> it.
>>
>>> Destroy each contract. [Just in case.]
>> "Contract" is not currently rules-defined, so this attempts to destroy
>> real-life contracts (thus creating a legal fiction that they don't
>> exist). Given that Agora used to be capable of recognising those, this
>> may be a useful precaution to take anyway; I just find the implications
>> interesting.
>
> I know. I just want to make absolutely sure no one claims that
> existing contracts kept existing even in the absence of an authorizing
> rule (like patent title do) and are now binding again.
>
>>> A condition is inextricable if it is unclear, ambiguous, circular,
>>> inconsistent, paradoxical, depends on information that is impossible or
>>> unreasonably difficult to determine, or otherwise requires an unreasonable
>>> effort resolve; otherwise it is extricable. A conditional is inextricable
>>> if
>> "unreasonable effort to resolve"
>>> its condition is inextricable; otherwise it is extricable. A player SHOULD
>>> NOT
>>> use an inextricable conditional for any purpose.
>>>
>>> An action said to be "subject to" a conditional if the possibility,
>> "An action is said to be "subject to" a conditional if its
>> possibility,"; you have two separate typos here
>
> Fixed.
>
>>> permissibility, or effect (depending on context) is determined by the
>>> conditional. A value is said to be subject to a conditional of the the
>>> state
>> "conditional if the state"
>
> Fixed.
>
>>> of the value is determined by the conditional.
>>
>>
>>> A person SHALL not act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the
>> "SHALL NOT"
>
> Done.
>
>>> second person to violate the rules. A person CANNOT act on behalf of
>>> another
>>> person to do anything except perform a game action; in particular, a person
>>> CANNOT act on behalf of another person to send a message, only to perform
>>> specific actions that might be taken within a message.
>> This seems to preclude publishing a report on behalf of another player,
>> unless you treat the report as a body of text that's nonetheless
>> distinct from the message containing it.
>
> It does. That is also precluded by protected action 6. I'm not opposed
> to making an exception in the long run, but I'd like to wait until
> we've worked out the bugs and scams.
>
>>> A regulation's promulgator SHALL generally obey eir own regulations as long
>>> as they are acting reasonably within their rule defined scope. E NEED NOT
>>> follow any regulation constraining em to take or not to take some action
>>> with
>>> to eir regulations, or any regulation constraining em to violate a rule.
>> "with to" doesn't make sense. Do you mean "with respect to"? (It's
>> possible that the correct correction is something else, but it needs
>> correcting somehow.)
>
> Changed to "with regard to".
>
>>> A contract is a textual entity, and the ruleset described entity embodied
>>> therein. A document can only become a contract through the appropriate
>>> ruleset
>>> defined procedures. Changes to the contracts text by rule defined
>>> mechanisms
>> "contract's text"
>>> (including those delegated to the contract itself) do not change the
>>> identity
>>> of the contract.
>>>
>>> The following changes are secured at power 2.1: creating or modifying a
>>> contract or causing an entity to become a contract. [Note that,
>>> as a precaution, causing an entity to cease being a contract is not
>>> secured.]
>> The square-bracketed section will end up in the ruleset the way your
>> proposal is currently worded. I recommend either removing it or
>> removing the brackets (it wouldn't be terrible to have an explanatory
>> note in the rules).
>
> Note the top paragraph "Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and
> comments in square brackets ("[]")
> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any
> rules
> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> have been removed before its resolution."
>
>>
>>> Contracts have parties, who are persons. The person(s) who create(s) a
>>> contract is/are automatically a party/parties. Other persons CAN become
>>> parties by announcement if the contract permits them do so. Parties can
>>> leave
>> "Other persons CAN become parties to a contract by announcement if the
>> contract permits them to do so"; this is a combination of a typo fix
>> and a rewording to make it clearer.
>
> Done.
>
>>> a contract by announcement, ceasing being parties, if the contract permits
>>> the to do so. A contract CAN expel a party or group of parties by
>> "if the contract permits them to do so"
>>> announcement, causing them to cease being parties.
>
> Done.
>
>>> formation. The Notary CAN by regulation increase this limit up to a maximum
>>> of 7; e CANNOT decrease it.
>> I'd be happier without the regulation clause here, given that it looks
>> a bit like the regulation works by amending a rule. If you think that
>> the ability to change the limit is necessary, I'd recommend stating
>> something like "the limit is by default 3, but can be set to a higher
>> value as specified by regulation by the Notary". Or just making it a
>> switch, that works too.
>
> How's this:
>
> "A person CAN create a contract by announcement by spending 1 shiny,
> specifying
> the contract's text. A person SHALL NOT create more than X (where X is the
> contract limit) contracts per week by this method, and the Notary CAN destroy
> any excess (i.e. beyond the X permitted) contracts by announcement within 7
> days of the contracts' formation, but only if the contract(s) were excess at
> the time of their creation.
>
> The contract limit is an untracked singleton switch, defaulting to 3, with
> possible values of any integer between 3 and 7. The contract limit can be
> set to any valid value in a regulation promulgated by the Notary."
>
> It's a tad clumsy, but I think it captures the correct meaning.
>
>>> If a contract has fulfilled its purpose, does not specify any gamestate
>>> affecting statements, or otherwise seems unlikely to be used, the Notary
>>> CAN and SHOULD destroy it Without 2 Objections or with Agoran Consent. Any
>>> player may destroy a contract with 2 Agoran Consent. Players SHOULD NOT use
>> "may"? You probably mean "CAN" here.
>
> Done.
>
>>> the methods in this paragraph to further their private interests.
>>
>>> The text of a contract CAN specify obligations upon its parties. Parties to
>> Given that this is a state of existence rather than an explicit action,
>> I'd prefer "can" to "CAN" here.
>
> Done.
>
>>> a contract SHALL abide by its terms and SHALL NOT deliberately or
>>> negligently
>>> breach them. The fact that the action described by the contract is in
>>> violation of the rules is not a defense if the violative nature is
>>> reasonably clear from its text. If whether an action is permitted or
>>> forbidden
>>> by a contract is indeterminate or subject to an inextricable conditional,
>>> it is presumptively permitted.
>>
>>> As an exception to the provisions of the previous paragraph and the
>>> circumstances in which cards would ordinarily be appropriate, a person
>>> awarding a card under this rule MAY and CAN validly consider the equitable
>> "CAN validly" is pretty much a synonym for "MAY". Congratulations on
>> finding a place where "MAY" is appropriate, though!
>
> No, it isn't. MAY means "CAN permissibly". It is currently ILEGAL
> _and_ IMPOSSIBLE for the referee to give inappropriate cards, so if
> I'm stretching the definition appropriateness I need to make the
> action both legal and possible.
>
>>> interests of justice and interests of the game, including the importance of
>>> the observation of contracts, as a mitigating or aggravating circumstances
>>> when awarding a card. Such a person MAY, CAN validly, and SHOULD also
>>> consider
>>> the instructions of the contract or contracts in question when issuing a
>>> card.
>>
>>> The text of a contract CAN permit persons to act on behalf of a party or
>>> group of parties. To do so, it must specify:
>>>
>>> a. Which of its parties can be acted on behalf of;
>>> b. What actions can be taken;
>>> c. Who can take the actions; and
>>> d. Any conditions or limitations upon the actions. Such limitations
>>> and conditions CANNOT be inextricable, and if they are,
>>> the actions CANNOT be used.
>> I considered trying to persuade the Rulekeepor to number rules out of
>> order so that this could be scammed, but it's too much effort for too
>> small a scam. You just want "If any of the limitations or conditions
>> are inextricable, the actions CANNOT be used"; as you have it at the
>> moment, you're attempting to define the limitations as being
>> extricable, in contradiction to the definition earlier.
>
> Done. I'm not sure a judge would agree with you, but I'd rather not
> risk it and your way is clearer.
>
>>> The following are protected actions:
>>>
>>> 1. Registering and deregistering;
>>> 2. Submitting, pending, or voting freely on a proposal, but only if the
>>> sole
>>> effect the proposal would have if adopted is to create, modify, or
>>> destroy
>>> a contract or group of contracts, or to cause an entity or group of
>>> entities to become or cease to be a contract or group of contracts;
>> You should probably ban contracts from interfering with the
>> distribution and assessment of the proposal, too.
>
> See item 6.
>
>>> 3. Destroying or amending a contract, intending to do so, and
>>> supporting, objecting to, or resolving such an intent, except where the
>>> mechanism for such destruction or amendment is created by the contract
>>> itself, and creating a contract;
>> This sentence is really hard to read. I'd recommend either moving
>> "creating a contract" to a new bullet point (preserves the meaning), or
>> placing it at the start, i.e. "Creating, destroying or amending a
>> contract" (note that this changes the meaning slightly, but in a
>> probably harmless way)
>
> I did the later.
>
>>
>>> 7. Objecting to or supporting an intent to perform an action while
>>> speaker;
>>> 8. Using an executive order; and
>> If you want to protect these two, you might want to consider protecting
>> the ability to start a Festival too (which is the same sort of thing).
>> On the other hand, it might be interesting for all of these actions to
>> be controllable by contract.
>>
>>> 9. Making, amending, revoking or calling in a pledge.
>> We could/should consider repealing pledges quickly after this is
>> adopted, on the basis that contracts have a superset of their
>> abilities, although that's not necessary to do in the same proposal;
>> this proposal's doing quite enough as it is!
>
> I think pledges serve a useful purpose. On the other hand, it would be
> possible to move the entire pledge rule into a contract, given how
> powerful contracts are.
>
>>> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a contract CANNOT compel, forbid,
>>> or in any significant way alter, tamper with, or modify the performance of
>>> a protected action. A contract CANNOT punish a player for performing or
>>> failing protected action, or for doing so in a particular manner, except
>>> where it would otherwise be ILEGAL. A contract also CANNOT enable a person
>>> to
>> "ILLEGAL"
>
> Fixed.
>
>>> do any of the things prohibited to the contract by this paragraph. Insofar
>>> as
>>> a contract or a provision or clause of a contract contravenes the letter or
>>> spirit of this rule, it is void and without effect.
>>
>>> A contract's text can specify whether or not that contract is
>>> willing receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, a contract CANNOT
>> "willing to receive"
>
> Fixed.
>
>>> be given assets it is unwilling to receive. If the contract is silent on
>>> the
>>> matter, or if its willingness is indeterminate or the subject of a
>>> inextricable conditional, the procedure to determine its willingness is as
>>> follows:
>>
>>
>>> An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by announcement
>>> by
>> "paid", surely?
>
> Fixed.
>
>>> its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its
>>> backing document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
>>> document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
>>>
>>> To spend an asset is to pay or destroy it for the purpose of doing some
>>> other
>>> action or fulfilling an obligation by announcement; if the action would not
>>> be completed, the obligation would not be at least partially fulfilled, or
>>> more of the asset would be spent than is needed to perform the
>>> action/fulfill
>>> the obligation, then the attempt to spend fails. Whether the asset must be
>>> spent or payed is determined by what is needed to perform the action. If
>> Likewise, "paid" here too.
>
> Fixed.
>
>>> the entity defining or enabling the action does not specify which is
>>> necessary, but merely that the asset must be spent, then it is transferred
>>> (to Agora unless otherwise specified).
>>
>>> Amendments to a backing document shall not be construed to alter, transfer,
>>> destroy, or otherwise effect any assets defined by that document, unless
>> "affect"
>
> Fixed.
>
>>> that is their clear intent.
>>>
>>> An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if it's
>> "its"
>
> Fixed.
>
> Thank you for your help!
>
> -Aris
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
