On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 21:17 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote
> No, there definitely is a problem with giving rule permission for > people to define arbitrary things that could be paradoxical. Both > organizations and agencies, which this replaces, have similar > prohibitions. This eliminates boilerplate in other places while > simultaneously creating a nice framework for conditionality. I'll > consider merging the two concepts though. > Fair. Ok. > These amendments to this rule seem wholly unnecessary to the rest of this > > proposal and should be at least separated out. As near as I can tell, you > > don't actually take advantage of any of the changes here, and I'm not > sure I > > like them. The only one that seems to me immediately useful is possibly > > securing it, but that definition doesn't need to be in this proposal. I > > don't see why a proposal about contracts needs to change the mechanics of > > proposal submission on behalf of other players. > > It doesn't, but I'm tweaking the acting on behalf rule so other rules > can specify exceptions, and this is a sensible one. There was a > problem with this once, and now seems like as good a time as any to > fix it. > I don't think that this is a sensible one at all, to be honest. Why should acting on behalf of someone to submit a proposal not make em the author? It may well be that that's a change we want, but it shouldn't be part of this proposal. This is the only rule in your proposal that includes an act on behalf exception, so you really can get away with moving this all out to another proposal. Compare also the concept of Executor, which is used in one place. It may be better to use that concept instead. > The deference clause is also broken; per rule 1030, deference only works > > where the rules have the same power. But also I'm not sure what it is > > actually trying to do: nothing in this rule actually provides a > mechanism to > > act on behalf of another person; only to define what it means for a rule > to > > allow em to do so. Interactions of when acting on behalf is or isn't > allowed > > will (and should remain) determined by precedence of the rules involved. > > It's in the current rule, and I'd prefer not to mess with it if I > don't have to. It was probably added for some reason. > Oh, so it is. Withdrawn. What's wrong with regulations? They may well be scamable, but they > only work as the rule creating them allows them to, so if there power > is limited I don't see the harm. I don't really get why you're so > upset about them. The other places they're used are to allow the > Notary to exempt contracts from sustenance, and to put some frankly > rather minimal throttling restrictions on contract changes. The only > even vaguely dangerous regulations thing in the entire proposal is > this, so if you wish I can remove this and put yet another specially > exception in the assets rule. > Mostly replied in the other thread, but I would deifnitely prefer to see this removed. What exception would be needed in the assets rule for this? I'm confused. > I'm confused by this. A contract is two entities, the text and some other > > thing? The last sentence here wouldn't be needed if you bring back 1586 I > > think. I would re-enact the rule and then decide whether a contract is an > > entity with a text, or a document with special properties (the former is > > likely far easier) > > That is correct, it is two things at once. Not doing any harm, but if > you prefer I could go with "A ruleset-described entity embodied in > text". > I strongly prefer "an entity with a text". For instance, in this proposed rule alone, you say "A document can only become a contract" implying that a contract is a document, but a document is one entity, not two. After thinking on this more, you shouldn't use the term document either. You can't amend a document, after all. It's just a part of a message; you can't go back in time and amend the document. Better to state that text is a property of a contract. > > >> > >> The properties of contracts, as defined by other rules, include the > >> following: > >> > >> - Parties, persons who agree to be bound by and assume powers under > >> the contract. > >> - The ability to be amended or destroyed. > >> - The ability to compel actions by their parties. > >> - The ability to allow persons to take actions on the part of their > >> parties. > >> - The ability to define arbitrary classes of asset. > >> - The ability to possess and control assets. > > > > > > This paragraph is very bad; it implies that nothing else is a property > of a > > contract, such as its text. I don't think it actually serves any purpose. > > It is carefully designed to do no such thing. Use of "include" exempts > it from the general principle "Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius". > It serves the important purpose of giving a summary and making the > contract rules clearer, and the "as defined by other rules" part stops > it from creating powers on its own. > Oops, I missed the word "include". Sorry. I still don't think this paragraph does anything meaningful and I would take it out. > I would clean up consent language, perhaps making a definition of consent > in > > Common Definitions, since there is varying language about "willful" vs > > "implicit" consent, and the like, and really they should all use the same > > definitions. > > I'm not sure that's needed. Can you give more of an idea of what > you're looking for? > You're trying to add language ensuring that some things require player consent, but we already have that and the language is different. We should have a single general definition of what "consent" means, for the cases where it should reasonably be implied. > > >> A contract CAN amend, destroy, or retitle itself by announcement. A > >> player > >> CAN amend, destroy, or retitle a contract without objection, even if > its > >> text denies em the ability to do so. Players SHOULD only use this > >> mechanism > >> to recover from situations where the contract is underspecified or has > >> unintended effects. The Notary CAN by regulation stop the same > contract > >> from > >> amending or retitling itself more than 5 combined times per Agoran day > >> (or any > >> number higher than that); e CANNOT stop a contract from being > destroyed, > >> or > >> from being retitled or amended by any other means. > > > > > > Amendment without objection should not be permitted. It allows a player > to > > bind another player without eir consent, by amending a contract to which > e > > is bound (it would require em not to object, but e could be away for 4 > days > > and miss the opportunity). See below for my suggested fix. > > Without objection is a high enough standard that you can do basically > anything without objection, short of amending the rules. For instance, > ratification without objection would allow people to do the same > thing. Plus, this is in organizations, and it's been used often > without ever causing any problems. Denied. > I'm still opposed, but the point about ratification is far. I'd rather not add more mechanisms to do this though. > An important question here is whether to include privity of contract (the > > principle that only parties to a contract may have an interest in the > > obligations it creates). In the name of simplicity as we introduce a very > > complicated mechanism, it may be better to at least assume privity where > it > > is convenient, and go with: > > - A contract may be destroyed by unanimous consent of its parties > > - A contract may be destroyed by its terms > > - A contract may be destroyed without objection (possibly only by the > > Notary). > > I don't think that's a good idea. The reason is that it's possible to > have a public service contract, which may have few members, but serves > the general interest. Any real-world discussion of privity includes > such principles as "beneficiaries", which would make this initial > proposal more complicated. > I think it's definitely good to support non-privy contracts, but I think it would be better to add it in a separate proposal that merges them with pledges (which are the definition of a contract without privity). >> 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 > >> 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. > > > > This fails due to power, for some cards. Better suited for proper > judicial > > reform, rather than trying to shoehorn equity in here. > > No it doesn't. The highest powered powered cards are at power 2. > My bad. I recalled incorrectly. My comment about shoehorning remains. >> > >> Create a new power 2.4 rule, entitled "Acting on Behalf via Contract", > >> with > >> the following text: > >> > >> If a rule says that a contract CAN do something by announcement, it is > >> equivalent to saying that that any person CAN take that action by > >> announcement > >> if the contract permits em to do so. A person SHALL NOT cause a > contract > >> to violate a rule using this method. > >> > >> If a rule specifies that a contract SHALL or SHALL NOT do something, > >> each > >> party to the contract SHALL ensure that the contract respectively does > >> or does not do that thing. > >> > >> > >> 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: > > > > Further confusion between a contract and its text. > > It's not confusion, its a clear distinction. If we presume that "CAN" > implies "by announcement", then a contract could inadvertently allow > people to announce that they could act on behalf of its members. That > is counterintuitive, and any contracts that want to do it should be > required to say so explicitly, e.g. "Any person CAN take any action on > behalf of any member of this contract if player X has announced, and > not subsequently withdrawn, permission for em to do so", rather than > "Person X can take any action the rules authorize thins contract to > take". > This is an excellent example of why CAN absolutely should not imply by announcement. In fact, I'm pretty sure there's a potential dictatorship scam here. Mum on it though! >> 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; > >> 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; > >> 4. Making true statements about a contract; > >> 5. Calling, judging, assigning, or freely discussing a CFJ; > >> 6. Lawfully performing an official duty; > >> 7. Objecting to or supporting an intent to perform an action while > >> speaker; > >> 8. Using an executive order; and > >> 9. Making, amending, revoking or calling in a pledge. > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> 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. > I missed this rule on the first pass. I have a few issues with it: - Capitalization of Speaker (okay, minor one) - This significantly limits officer's abilities to make contracts about their own duties. - There's a lot of subjectivity here, especially in regards to the "spirit of this rule" clause. Trying to determine if an action fails because it's in violation of the spirit of the rule sounds generally horrid. - Joining, creating and leaving a contract are missing? I ultimately don't think that this is a serious issue. The provisions in this rule seem to generally come in two kinds: anti-mousetrap clauses, and clauses to generally prevent intereference with game functions. The first are already mostly addressed by requirements of consent. The ones that aren't are registration/deregistration, but those should honestly be handled by consent as well, and proposals, but trying to prevent proposals from mousetrapping players is pointless since a proposal is capable of enacting rules imposing arbtirary restrictions on a player anyway. It's also trivially avoided by e.g. compelling a vote on a proposal that mousetraps someone *and* does something else. I don't understand why the second kind. There is no reason that contracts should not be allowed to interfere with official duties, for instance; we commonly see officers make pledges about them. A candidate in an election may pledge to behave in a certain way if elected. Two players could agree to support of all of each others' intents, but this clause would exempt the Speaker from such an agreement. If a player sets themselves up into a position where they must violate the rules or a contract, its eir own fault. > > > No, no, no, no, no. A player can use this to avoid an obligation by > failing > > to pay for the contract. > > E can. If eir obligation is only intended to apply to emself, it > should be in a pledge. Also, any interested player can pay for it. > This hopefully means that disused contracts will be destroyed when no > one cares enough to pay for them. > What about when pledges and contracts are merged? It's so that contracts which act as agencies or real-world style > contracts don't get money they don't know how to deal with. It saves > boilerplate when writing contracts. > Hmm, not fully convinced but ok.. Also these clauses about contracts should really not be in the Assets rule; it's too long as it is. >> The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any) > >> defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That > >> entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class > >> and their owners. This portion of that entity's report is > >> self-ratifying. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a contract > CANNOT > >> oblige a person who isn't a member to record its internal state. > >> > >> An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by > >> announcement, subject to modification by its backing document. An > >> indestructible asset is one defined as such by it backing document, > and > >> CANNOT > >> be destroyed except by a rule, other than this one, specifically > >> addressing > >> the destruction of indestructible assets or that asset in particular; > >> any > >> other asset is destructible. In circumstances where another asset > would > >> be > >> destroyed, an indestructible asset is generally transferred to Agora, > >> subject > >> to modification by its backing document and the intervention of other > >> rules. > > > > Why add "other than this one"? > > Because CuddleBeam pointed out that this rule adresses the destruction > of indestructible assets, arguably making the entire paragraph > meaningless. Ah. Point.
