tournaments should just be contracts with special powers anyway.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That would require rewriting the tournaments wording, and it's kind of
> close to the Birthday tournament to be doing that.
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/19/19 11:38 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > what if you repeal regulations and change regulations to mean this
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get
> >> confused with regulations.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jason Cobb
> >>
> >> On 6/19/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>> I'd personally create a shorter word for "requirement-creating
> >>> entity". I'm not sure what it should be, but there has to be
> >>> something.
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
> >>>> Nice.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you can shorten this by getting rid of most of the "entities"
> >> like
> >>>> so:
> >>>>
> >>>> "An entity is requirement-creating if and only if..."
> >>>>
> >>>> "Regulations are requirement-creating."
> >>>> "Contracts are requirement-creating."
> >>>> Etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 6/19/2019 6:08 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>>>> Here it is. This one (hopefully) isn't a victim of scope creep. I
> >> actually
> >>>>> like this one a lot more because it's so much simpler.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> {
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations
> are
> >>>>> requirement-creating entities."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") as follows:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Append the following sentence to the first paragraph:
> "Contracts
> >> are
> >>>>> requirement-creating entities."
> >>>>> Append the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning
> >>>>> "Parties to a contract governed by the rules":
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be
> >>>>> sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include
> >>>>> conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs.
> >>>>> Contracts CAN regulate actions that are defined in other
> >>>>> requirement-creating entities. Any actions that meet these
> are
> >>>>> regulated by the contract. Any actions that do not meet
> these
> >>>>> criteria are not regulated by the contract.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> An entity is a requirement-creating entity if and only if the
> >> Rules
> >>>>> designate it as such. The Rules as a whole is a
> >> requirement-creating
> >>>>> entity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> An action is regulated by a requirement-defining entity if: (1)
> >> the
> >>>>> entity directly and explicitly defines, limits, allows,
> enables,
> >>>>> permits, forbids, or requires its performance; (2) the entity
> >>>>> describes the circumstances under which the action would
> succeed
> >> or
> >>>>> fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify
> >>>>> information for which the entity requires some player to be a
> >>>>> "recordkeepor"; or (4) the Rules state that the action is
> >> regulated
> >>>>> by the entity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The above notwithstanding, if the Rules state that an action is
> >> not
> >>>>> regulated by an entity, the action is not regulated by that
> >> entity.
> >>>>> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a requirement-creating
> >> entity
> >>>>> CANNOT add or remove ways of performing actions that it does
> not
> >>>>> define, but it CAN forbid or require the performance of such
> >> actions.
> >>>>> The set of actions that are regulated by an entity is the
> entity's
> >>>>> set of regulated actions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> An action that is regulated by a requirement-creating entity
> CAN
> >>>>> only be performed as described by the entity, and only using
> the
> >>>>> methods explicitly specified in the entity for performing the
> >> given
> >>>>> action. The entity SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe
> >>>>> actions that are not regulated by it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated
> action
> >> of
> >>>>> some requirement-creating entity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Retitle Rule 2125 to "Requirement-Creating Entities".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Set the power of Rule 2125 to 3.1.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jason Cobb
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 6/19/19 7:47 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>>>>> Hey Aris,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you for your message. It's very helpful to be able to see some
> >> of
> >>>>>> your past experience and the knowledge gained from it. (Sorry, this
> is
> >>>>>> awkward. Thanking people by email is hard :P)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After reading it, I realized this effectively became a (poorly
> >> executed)
> >>>>>> attempt at unifying rules, contracts, and regulations under one
> system
> >>>>>> (which I think is probably not a bad idea, but it needs to be done
> >>>>>> incrementally), instead of what it originally was, which was just to
> >>>>>> extend the useful concept of "regulated actions" to things besides
> >> the Rules.
> >>>>>> I'll submit a vastly simpler proto shortly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To close, here's just some things I thought when reading your
> message:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think you're probably going to have to take another go at it.
> >>>>>> I fully expected this. That's why I submitted it to agora-discussion
> >> first
> >>>>>> :).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Specifically, I get the feeling that you took your core idea and
> >> started
> >>>>>>> thinking of all of the potential problems and expansions." What if
> >>>>>>> someone tries this?" "What if this gets interpreted this way?"
> "What
> >> if
> >>>>>>> someone wants to try this and can't?"
> >>>>>> Who are you and how did you get into my house?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> the reason it's so massive is that you*tried* (and quite possibly
> >>>>>>> failed, because anticipating every possible consequence in advance
> is
> >>>>>>> basically impossible) to deal with all of the necessary
> consequences.
> >>>>>> Correction: definitely did fail. Pretty quickly after I submitted
> it,
> >> I
> >>>>>> thought up some pretty bad logical consequences from it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jason Cobb
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 6/19/19 5:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>>>>>> I think you're probably going to have to
> >>>>>>> take another go at it.
> >
>
--
>From R. Lee
