Maybe a model like this would work:
- _Each_ requirement-creating entity (including both the Rules at large,
each contract, regulations, etc.) has its own set of "regulated
actions", and cannot be interpreted to say anything about actions
outside of this set. This would keep the stipulation that you can't do
it except as the requirement-creating entity permits you to.
- The regulated actions of contracts can define new terms that consist
of doing thing in sequence (including conditionals, repetition, and
whatnot), but each element of this sequence must be a regulated action
of a different requirement-creating entity.
- This would just render invalid contracts that attempt to prohibit
non-game actions, such as breathing.
- We permit them to defer to other requirements-creating entities
because;
- If it is the Rules, then the regulated actions are already
relating to the game (assuming the rules don't ever try to
prohibit breathing).
- If it is a Rules-created requirement-creating entity (maybe a
regulation), then it is as safe as the Rules.
- If it is another contract, then, applying this logic
recursively, it can only do safe things, so it's okay.
- The regulated actions of requirement-creating entities can also
include regulated actions of _other_ requirement-creating entities, but
cannot provide new methods of performing them.
- This permits a contract that requires its players to, say, perform
the Ritual, without allowing it to say that the Ritual can be
performed by doing something else, like, say, sending a public message.
- As currently, contracts can create requirements upon players that the
Rules will enforce on the parties only.
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 8:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/16/2019 5:43 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 6/16/19 8:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> V.J. Rada
>> > Text: Repeal rule 2125 "Regulated Actions"
>>
>> Jason Cobb wrote:
>> > Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice...
>>
>> I think we'd always like to have some sort of protection against
>> regulating breathing and the like. Grabbed some old language from the
>> Rights era,
>> maybe we should go more along these lines...?
>> No interpretation of Agoran law or
>> binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person's
>> rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and
>> legal amendment of this Rule.
>> [...]
>> Every person has the right, though not necessarily the
>> ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or
>> regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of
>> changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules
>> explicitly or implicitly permit it.
>
I think that might fall victim to the same thing I tried with CFJ
3737. When we have contracts, any player can get the Rules to
prohibit anything (at least for certain players), thus removing the
protections. So, when I create a contract that prohibits breathing,
breathing would be indirectly "prohibited or regulated by the Rules"
through the requirement for some people to follow the contract, thus
taking away everyone's right to breathe in the Rules.
Oh, you're right, I think we'd have to make a specific exception
somewhere
that a contract doesn't make something "regulated" even if breach of
contract is punishable in the rules.
