On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
This seems like it could allow contracts to create ambiguous game states through unreasonably complex conditionals or repetition... though that possibility may already exist. > Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in > other binding entities. To the extent specified by the Rules, > contracts CAN define or regulate other actions. Any actions that > meet these criteria are regulated by the contract. Any actions > that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by the contract. The last sentence seems to do nothing, since "these criteria" include "regulat[ing] other actions" "to the extent specified by the Rules", but it's true in general that you can only regulate things to the extent specified by the Rules. > A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except > that the performance of them must include at least one announcement: "at least one announcement" seems overly broad – e.g. "X CAN act on behalf of Y to deregister by announcing that e likes cupcakes." > An action is regulated by a binding 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. There are actions which are forbidden but not meant to be regulated, e.g. making a public statement that is a lie (which, given the definitions in R478, refers to the real-world action of sending an email). > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a binding entity CAN only > require or forbid an action that it does not define; it CANNOT > modify anything else about the action in any way. This arguably conflicts with the "CAN only be performed" clause below, in which case the latter would take precedence by R2240. > 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 binding 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. The SHALL-NOT-interpret clause really needs to go away; I'm pretty sure it was only added by mistake (i.e. it wasn't intended to use the definition implied by the capitalization). It makes no sense to attach criminal penalties to interpretations at all, let alone without saying those interpretations are wrong.
