Agreed on the ACORN, though I did like the name.
They're so generic it's just hard to believe that they won't be
useful. I mean, they're basically flexible rule extensions. They span
the gap between actions, which can only have specified effect for a
single instant, and rules, which can do whatever they want. They can
only have specified effects, but do so on an ongoing basis. It's a
concept that fits tournaments pretty nicely, for instance. There have
also been proposals to require, e.g., a specified list of checks that
must be done before submitting a proposal, which would also make sense
as a regulation. Yet for some reason no one ever seems to use them.
I'm not sure if that's because flexible rule extensions are just
unnecessary for some ineffable reason, or because people don't
understand what they're for, or for some reason. Would anyone care to
opine on that?
To be clear, I'd really like for regulations to exist, but I'd like
them to be used. If there's something that can be done to make it so
people actually start using them more widely (where appropriate, of
course), I'd like to do it.
-Aris
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:49 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
