Basically I like this proposal, which is good (although Oaths should also
be binding, right?) but I can't vote for it unless it slashes and burns
rules mwa ha ha.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:49 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
--
>From R. Lee
