If they've never been useful in the past... I don't see a future use for
them. It's true that there's no longer the total sinecure of Regkeepor. Rip
the ACORN, you will not be missed.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:46 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I simplified regulations to the point where they're literally one
> rule. I'm biased, but I personally think the "it might be useful in
> future" argument means that keeping them makes sense at this point.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:40 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
