Thanks! Responses inline. Jason Cobb
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.
This should probably be fixed with extricability in general, rather than just only applying to contracts.
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.
I put the "to the extent specified by the Rules" clause there primarily to allow the final section of the proposal to allow contracts to let its parties do things listed there.
I put that "Any actions that do not meet these criteria are not regulated by the contract." there to explicitly invoke the override clause in the new Rule 2125. By the definition of "regulated", a contract could still forbid/require/etc. actions that it defines, even if it CANNOT define those actions. This clause prevents that.
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."
That's probably valid, although it's at least better than allowing it to be performed secretly. I will withdraw and submit a v1.1 to fix this.
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).
If in the previous wording "limit" is interpreted to include "SHALL NOT", then this is a bug in both versions. I can't think of a clear way to fix this other than trying to find all such places in the Rules, which doesn't sound fun.
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.
Correct, the latter clause should say "An action that is *defined* by a binding entity..." Will fix in v1.1.
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.
Unfortunately there's no standardised wording for stating that interpretations are valid or invalid.
Perhaps "Interpretations that result in the entity proscribing actions that are not regulated by it are invalid"?
