Okay, I've updated my local draft of it to use "binding".
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 11:52 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
That actually makes a lot of sense, logically. The term binding is
only used in a few places in the rules, and, at a glance, I don't
think any of them would conflict with this.
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:48 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe "binding"?
"Contracts are binding", "Regulations are binding".
"An entity is binding if and only if..."
Jason Cobb
On 6/19/19 11:37 PM, Jason Cobb 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.
