It’s getting to the point where this is feeling inelegant again, which is
usually a very bad sign.
-Aris
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:57 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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"?
> >
>
