Here's v2 for further comment. Since we've got a while before the next
distribution, I'll leave it up for much longer.
omd: any of your previous comments that I did not specify a resolution
for are resolved as WONTFIX (I think it's just inextricable conditionals
and not regulating matters of external reality, for which there's no
simple wording that I see).
I also permit contracts to regulate joining and leaving the contract.
{
Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations are
binding."
Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") as follows:
Append the following sentence to the first paragraph: "Contracts are
binding."
Insert the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning
"Parties to a contract governed by the rules":
Contracts CAN define and regulate 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 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.
Replace the paragraph beginning "A party to a contract CAN" and the
following list with the following text:
A contract CAN define and regulate the following actions, except
that the performance of them must include at least clearly and
unambiguously announcing the performance of the action:
* Acting on behalf of a party to the contract.
* Revoking destructible assets from the contract.
* Taking liquid assets from the contract.
* The creation, transfer, and destruction of any asset for
which the contract is the backing document.
* Changing from being a non-party to being a party to the
contract
* Changing from being a non-party to being a party to the
contract
Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
An entity is binding if and only if the Rules designate it as such.
The Rules as a whole is an entity that is binding.
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.
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 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.
The set of actions that are regulated by an entity is the entity's
set of regulated actions.
An action that is defined 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.
Interpretations that result in the entity proscribing actions that
are not regulated by it are invalid.
An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of
some binding entity.
Retitle Rule 2125 to "Binding Entities".
Set the power of Rule 2125 to 3.1.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/22/19 12:54 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
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"?
